유형별/분류별 연구성과물 검색
HOME ICON HOME > Search by Achievements Type > Reports View

Reports Detailed Information

영어와 한국어의 공간개념의 인지적 비교 연구
Reports NRF is supported by Research Projects( 영어와 한국어의 공간개념의 인지적 비교 연구 | 2004 Year 신청요강 다운로드 PDF다운로드 | 이성하(한국외국어대학교) ) data is submitted to the NRF Project Results
Researcher who has been awarded a research grant by Humanities and Social Studies Support Program of NRF has to submit an end product within 6 months(* depend on the form of business)
  • Researchers have entered the information directly to the NRF of Korea research support system
Project Number A00208
Year(selected) 2004 Year
the present condition of Project 종료
State of proposition 재단승인
Completion Date 2006년 05월 05일
Year type 결과보고
Year(final report) 2006년
Research Summary
  • Korean
  • 영어와 한국어 두 언어에서 사용되고 있는 공간개념 표지 전치사 또는 후치사가 어떠한 어원으로부터 출발하여 어떠한 인지적인 장치를 통하여 어떠한 변화 경로를 거쳐 현재 각 개별언어에서 어떠한 공시적인 의미와 기능의 구조를 가지게 되었는지를 연구․분석하고, 이 두 언어에서 어떠한 공통점과 차이점을 보이며 이러한 공통점과 차이점이 무엇에서 연유하는지를 분석하는 것이 본 연구의 핵심이다. 본 연구는 원래의 계획대로 진행되어 국내 학회에서 1회, 국내에서 열린 국제학술대회에서 1회, 미국에서 열린 국제학술대회에서 2회 등 전체 4회에 걸쳐 중요 내용들을 다룬 각각의 논문을 발표하였고, 최종결과물은 이들을 통합하는 포괄적인 주제의 논문으로 학술진흥재단의 A급 등재학술지에 게재하였다.
  • English
  • This research was a one-year project to investigate the linguistic representations of spatial concepts in English and Korean from a comparative, cognitive and contrastive approach. Adopting the grammaticalization framework, this work analyzed the diachronic development of each spatial adposition and their synchronic network, and examined some of the important hypotheses to see if they are well observed in these two typologically different languages.
    In the final version of the research paper, various aspects of the spatial grams in English and Korea were compared. We paid special attention to the intra-systemic organization of spatial forms in each language with respect to a number of theoretical issues advanced in grammaticalization and cognitive semantics studies.
    As for the grammaticalization hierarchy which supposedly is indicative of the likelihood of grammaticalization of a spatial gram, it has been illustrated that the hierarchy is largely well observed in English in terms of their use primacy. The hierarchy, however, is not observed in Korean, and there are inconsistencies as to the hierarchy conformity depending on the data sources. This is assumed to be largely due to the conflation of various spatial grams with the unmarked ?ey that can be used across categories. In order to find a conclusive answer we may have to analyze the uses of ?ey by semantic distinctions like ?at, in, on, to? and combine each use frequency with the frequency of the representative postpositions used for that particular spatial concept, which shall be beyond the interest of limited space and thus the scope of this research.
    As for the layering phenomenon in English, we noted that there are two different layers: one layer is composed of the primary, older, shorter prepositions, and the other layer is composed of the secondary, newer, longer prepositions. On the other hand, the two different layers in Korean are based on a different distinction: one layer is composed of the putatively older, native Korean postpositions, and the other layer is composed of the putatively newer, Sino-Korean postpositions.
    As for functional specialization in English, the primary prepositions usually mark spatial, temporal, and other abstract conceptual entities. And the secondary prepositions almost always mark spatial entities. On the other hand, in Korean, the native Korean postpositions mostly mark the spatial entities, and Sino-Korean postpositions mostly mark temporal and other abstract conceptual entities. This peculiarity suggests that the historical depth of grammaticalization does not necessarily go with the degree of semantic change.
    Finally, as for markedness, considering the multiplicity of spatial terms in the organization of spatial concepts according to markedness as suggested by Levinson, the markedness seems to be meaningful both in English and Korean with respect to either multiplicity of forms or the relative token frequencies in holistic terms.
Research result report
  • Abstract
  • This paper analyzes the spatial concepts in English and Korean from a cognitive comparative approach. The two languages show certain commonalities and differences in their use of spatial grams. Among the findings, of particular significance is the fact that the grammaticalization likelihood hierarchy is well observed in the English spatial prepositional system, whereas it is not so in the Korean spatial postpositional system. In addition, in terms of the layering phenomena, English exhibits two different layers of the primary prepositional system and the secondary prepositional system. The layering in Korean involves the putatively older, native Korean postpositional system and the putatively newer, Sino-Korean postpositional system. These two layered systems coexist through functional specialization. In English the specialization involves the distinction between abstractness and concreteness, whereas in Korean, though similar distinction is utilized, the two layers show the reverse as compared with English. Finally, the concept of 'markedness' bears particular significance in both languages in terms of the numbers of the members and the token frequencies of the categories created along such variables as dimensions and ground-marking.
  • Research result and Utilization method
  • 본 연구는 영어전치사와 한국어 후치사 중에서 공간개념을 나타내는 표지들이 통시적으로 문법화된 과정과 현재의 공시적인 분포를 분석한 연구이다. 앞서 설명한 다양한 분석결과는 여기서 다룬 공간개념 이외에도 다른 개념을 비교하는 데에 응용될 수 있을 것이다. 따라서 현재에는 인간의 인지에 있어서 매우 중요한 개념이라 할 수 있는 도구성 (instrumentality)의 개념이 어떠한 통시적 과정을 통해 문법화되었고, 공시적으로는 이들 개념들이 부치사로서 어떻게 구현되며 또한 이들 개념이 인지적으로 이와 유사한 다른 개념에 어떻게 관계를 맺고 있는가를 연구하고 있다. 이미 일부의 연구결과는 국제학술대회에서의 발표를 앞두고 있다. 이러한 연구확장은 여타한 인지개념들에도 순차적으로 적용될 수 있을 것이며 결과적으로 전체적인 문법개념이 인지적으로 어떻게 표상되고 있으며 인지 내에서 어떠한 분포를 이루고 있는지, 유사한 개념들이 어떠한 대립 또는 협동의 관계를 언어적으로 보이는지 분석하는 데에 좋은 기본연구가 될 것으로 생각된다.
  • Index terms
  • grammaticalization, spatial gram, markedness, English preposition, Korean postposition, comparative approach, cognitive approach
  • List of digital content of this reports
데이터를 로딩중 입니다.
  • This document, it is necessary to display the original author and you do not have permission
    to use copyrighted material for-profit
  • In addition , it does not allow the change or secondary writings of work
데이터 이용 만족도
자료이용후 의견