증거성(evidentiality)과 주어제약의 유형론-한국어, 몽골어, 티벳어를 예로 들어- (Typology of Evidentiality and Subject Restriction: based on Korean, Mongolian and Tibetan)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 형태론
· 수록지 정보 : 형태론 / 9권 / 1호 / 1 ~ 23페이지
· 저자명 : 송재목

초록

이 글에서는 한국어와 몽골어, 티벳어에 보이는 증거성(evidentiality)과 관련된 문법표지들을 ‘직접지식’, ‘간접지식’, ‘보고’의 표지로 나누어서 살펴보고 이들에 대한 주어제약현상을 관찰하였다. 세 언어에서 주어제약은 주로 1인칭에 집중적으로 나타난다. 간접지식과 보고의 표지는 세 언어에서 모두 1인칭주어와는 함께 사용되지 않는다. 직접지식에 있어서는 몽골어 ‘-laa’는 주어제약이 없지만 한국어 ‘-더-, -네’와 티벳어 ‘-thæ’는 1인칭주어를 일반적으로 허용하지 않는다. 간접지식표지와 보고표지에 대한 주어제약은 1인칭주어문에 함의된 증거성의미와 증거성표지가 나타내는 증거성의미의 대립에 의해 생겨나는 것으로 분석한다. 몽골어와 한국어, 티벳어의 직접지식표지에서 나타나는 주어제약의 차이는 직접지식이 나타내는 정보영역의 차이로 설명한·다. 화자의 직접경험과 직접관찰을 모두 포함하는 몽골어 ‘-laa’는 주어제약이 없지만, 화자의 직접관찰만을 나타내는 한국어 ‘-더-, -네’와 티벳어 ‘-thæ’는 1인칭주어와 함께 사용되지 않는다. 세 언어의 증거성관련표지들의 특성만으로 볼 때 한국어는 유형론적으로 몽골어보다는 티벳어에 가깝다고 할 수 있다.

영어초록

This paper investigates relations between evidential markers and their subject restriction in Korean, Mongolian and Tibetan, and classifies their typological patterns. The three languages distinguish direct-knowledge (DK), indirect-knowledge (IK) and reported-knowledge (RK) evidentials. Evidential markers are often accompanied by subject restriction. Subject restriction is mainly observed with first person. The three languages do not allow the IK and RK evidentials to be used with a first person subject. The DK evidential can be used with first person in Mongolian but not in Korean or Tibetan. We argue that subject restriction in the IK and RK evidentials results from a semantic conflict between the information demanded on a first person subject and that of the evidentials. The speaker’s own event or situation is supposed to be directly perceived by him and therefore a first person subject implies the meaning of direct and first-hand knowledge. The indirect and second-hand knowledge meaning in the IK and RK evidentials is not compatible with the implied meaning of a first person subject and hence the first person restriction in IK and RK evidentials. While the Mongolian DK past marker –laa does not show subject restriction, the Korean DK markers –te-, -ney and the Tibetan DK marker -thæ cannot have a first person subject. This paper assumes that DK evidentials can be divided into two subtypes: i) Inclusive and ii) Exclusive. The inclusive DK evidential covers not only the speaker’s direct experience but also his direct observation, whereas the exclusive DK evidential only covers situations directly observed by the speaker. The target of observation is the surroundings of the deictic center (the speaker) and the deictic center itself is not normally included within the scope of observation. Therefore, the exclusive DK evidential is not used to express situations of a first person subject. We argue that the Mongolian -laa belongs to the inclusive DK evidential, whereas the Korean –te-, -ney and the Tibetan -thæ belong to the exclusive DK evidential. Overall, Korean is closer to Tibetan than Mongolian in terms of the charactereistics of evidential markers and their subject restriction.

참고자료

· 없음