라틴어의 후치어

이향천 ( Hyang Cheon Lee ) 충남대학교 인문과학연구소 2002 인문학연구 Vol.29 No.1

언어 변화의 양상과 원인

이향천 ( Hyang Cheon Lee ) 배달말학회 2015 배달말 Vol.57 No.-

언어의 변화의 연구는 언어를 변화하는 것으로 바라보는 것이다. 언어는 역사 속에, 사회 속에 존재한다. 한 세기를 주도한 구조주의적 언어관은 역사, 사회 등을 추상시켜 버리고 언어의 구조를 논하면서 간결한 기술이나 설명을 얻을 수 있었을지는 모르지만, 언어 현실에 대한 근본적 시각의 한계가 있고, 손대지도 못한 영역들이 많다. 1960년대에 들어 Labov는 사회 속에서 변화하는 언어를 언어의 실상으로 제시하고, 사회적, 심리적, 문화적 요소들과 상관을 보이는 언어의 변이나 변화를 추적했다. 우리는 언어에 대한 정적이고 추상적인 시각을 떨치고 역사와 사회 속에서 변화해가는 모습으로서의 언어관을 지향한다. 언어가 변화하는 양상들의 문제는 무엇이 변하는 가의 문제와 밀접하다. 변하는 것들에는 개체 항목만 있는 것이 아니라, 그 개체가 속하는 체계가 있고, 언중들의 사회적 위치, 심리, 인식, 행위들도 있다. 체계의 변화는 크게 체계 유지와 파괴가 있고, 체계 유지 안에서는 가감과 조율의 방식이 있다. 이 중 조율 현상은 크게 새로운 시각으로 접근할 필요가 있다. 언어 변화의 원인을 설명함에 많은 학자들이 아직 인과적 설명이나 해석학적 설명에 대한 뚜렷한 개념을 갖고 있지 않은 것으로 보인다. 필자는 언어가 표류한다고 보며, 그 표류에는 구조적이고 결정적인 요인이 있다고 본다. 언어가 표류로 비치는 까닭은 우리들이 그 원인이 되는 변수나 매개 변수를 아직 까마득히 모르기 때문이다. 그리고 언어 변화는 단독으로 그치는 것이 아니라 그 변화가 다른 체계 내의 변화를 가져오고, 또 역으로 계속 상호작용을 하는 것으로 본다. 그리고 이러한 상호 작용적 변화 현상을 기술하기 위해서는 적응적 표상 체계가 필요하다. The realistic study of language focuses on the changing aspect of language. It is based on the fact that language changes over time and varies within a society, and that language is not an abstract form which has constant states or properties, but is a continuous flow, a natural drift. The traditional study of linguistic change has shortcomings such as the paucity of evidence, the limits and unauthenticity of written documents and the methodological weaknesses in comparing and internal reconstruction. When looking at the modes of language change it is important to know what it is that changes. It may be a linguistic item(a word, or a phoneme) or the system which comprises the items. The system may cease to be, or continue to maintain itself. And there are two kinds of changing modes within the maintaining system: the modification and the modulation. The modulational aspect has not been the focused area of linguistic research or study, but it is gaining more and more attention in the other areas. It is not just a suprasegmental phenomenon, but a deep, basic psychological phenomenon. What changes may be the communicator, the activity, the mind, the emotion, the belief, and others. The causes of language change may be diverse according to what it is that changes. And there are two kinds of explanations of language change: a causal and a hermeneutic(functional, motivational). Lass considers the causal explanation as the only authentic scientific explanation and criticizes the other. The language change, for him, is a historical evolution and the change is determined structurally just as with the organisms, not by the intentions or the plans of the communicators, for they cannot be aware of their intentions or plans deployed over time. But, it cannot be denied that language is a medium, it represents the speaker``s action, intention, knowledge, and if what changes is an intention or an action, the physical explanation will not be satisfactory. The psychological factors might matter in some causal way, only that we do not have yet the science of mind, action, or emotion. In conclusion, we need a representing system of the change in general. The changes may not be represented in terms of states or non dynamic terms. A thermometer is a kind representing system of dynamics, a trajectory. And a thermostat is a model of adaptive representing system in the sense that it adapts to the external environmental change(of the water tank) while controlling and regulating the system(the heater). If an adaptive representing system is to be envisaged with respect to language change, there must be, in response to the language change, the adaptive system that can represent a change in behavioral pattern, or psychological terms, or social norms, etc.

우리는 나의 복수일까?

이향천(Hyang-Cheon Lee) 사단법인 한국언어학회 2018 언어학 Vol.0 No.80

-나, -도, -만

이향천(Hyang-cheon Lee) 사단법인 한국언어학회 2007 언어학 Vol.0 No.47

역설 의미론의 기초

이향천(Hyang-Cheon Lee) 사단법인 한국언어학회 2015 언어학 Vol.0 No.71

Semantics of paradox is a theory on the meaning of paradoxical expressions like “That is a nonsense!”, “It is absurd!”. As a working definition, ‘paradox’ is defined as a specific type of situation which causes people to respond to it with such utterances like above. The semantics of paradox will not look like a semantics of words, phrases, sentences, or compound sentences. It has to do with the aspects of situations which are of a higher level category than that of things, states, events, or simple conjunction of events. To construct a theory of paradox, it is essential to find specific patterns in the situations which bring about the socalled paradoxical responses. These patterns which constitute the situations are the core that has paradoxical efficacy. The patterns I present are: Infinity, Totality, Self-reflexivity, Duplexity (manifested through Confusion through Representation or Taking-as), and the singular domain - the First Person-Singular-Present. I discuss these patterns independently or in association with the philosophers’ treatments of their paradoxes. The ‘vagueness’ found in the talk on Sorites Paradox is repudiated. The philosophers felt it paradox not because it was vague but because they have seen the Law of Mathematical Induction violated. And the self-reflexivity found in the Liar’s Paradox is not the genuine cause of the paradox, but rather it is the confusion between the object language and the meta language. Why do paradoxes occur? Is it because the world goes like that? Is it because we see, think and act in a specific way? I think the both are to be taken into consideration, and always at the same time. Why do we respond in such a way to the paradoxes? Well, first because of the feeling of total helplessness, or uncontrollability we feel when the world is vast and have infinity which our finite reason cannot measure or cope with. And when we see things broken or violated, the things that we keep preserving and want to preserve, and that preserve us: the laws or the principles, the dearest things, the norms, the conscious or unconscious practices, or habits. When they are broken or violated it is hard for us to tolerate the situation. So the paradoxes teach us what they are that we preserve and keep. They inform us how we conduct our behaviors, how we choose, and how we react. They raise us our understanding, knowledge, emotion or perception to higher levels when we have understood what paradoxes are and how paradoxes work upon us.

피동의 의미론

이향천(Hyang-Cheon Lee) 사단법인 한국언어학회 1992 언어학 Vol.0 No.14

양상의 통합적 고찰

이향천 ( Lee Hyang-cheon ) 배달말학회 2021 배달말 Vol.68 No.-

양상의 문제는 고대로부터 지금까지도 수많은 혼란과 모호함을 빚고 있다. 이는 피상적, 단면적, 표면적 시각들 때문이다. 동사의 형태론적 굴절로 바라보는 시각이 피상적이고, 말하는 방법(mode of speaking)으로만 바라본 시각이 단면적이고, 작용을 무시하고 결과적 현상만을 바라본 것이 표면적이다. 따라서 우리는 양상을 전면적이고, 일반적이고, 심층적으로 바라볼 수 있어야 한다. 그러기 위해서 우리는 세계와 인식과 언어의 삼계를 연결하고, 사물의 층위와 사태의 층위와 초사태의 층위를 통합하고, 현상과 작용을 통합할 필요가 있다. 그리고, 여러 시각들을 아우를 수 있어야 하며 비치는 것이 그대로 존재한다고 믿는 표상주의의 영향으로부터 벗어날 수 있어야 한다. 그리고 근본적으로 언어는 단어나 문장으로 나타나는 독립된 기호들의 체계가 아니라 우리들의 삶과 세계 속에서 쓰이는 것으로 맥락과 틀을 갖고 상호작용 속에 나타난다는 것을 볼 수 있어야 한다. 그리하여 막연히 관찰의 대상으로서만 언어를 바라보지 말고 행위를 중심으로 세계를 구성하는 일이 긴요하다. 행위를 중심으로, 행위를 기반으로 양상들을 연역해낼 수 있어야 양상에 대한 통합된, 그리고 적절한 시각을 얻을 수 있다. From the ancient grammarians to the current linguists the views on the mode have been vague, superficial, fragmentary, one-sided, and confusing. We need to develop the appropriate, integral views on the modal phenomena. First, I propose we describe the modal phenomena integrating the three worlds: the world, the thought world, and the linguistic world. The three worlds are connected through representation: the thought world represents the world, and the linguistic world represents the world that is represented by the thought world. The three worlds can be equivalent through representation, for the representation makes the representer and the represented equivalent. Second, we must integrate the levels of analysis: the level of the things, the level of the state of affairs, and the upper levels. Thus we can achieve the generality of the term ‘mode’. The property of a thing, and the mode of a state of affairs and the system property of a system can be dealt univocally. Third, we must use all the available resources. We must take into consideration not only the observed things, but also the observer, the scope, the context and so on. Only with integrating these things we can achieve a deeper level analysis of the phenomena. And I propose that we treat the mode in the way as how the state appears to the observer as well as the way how the state works upon the experiencer. Fourth, we must put the action at the center of all the things, or let the action define all the others surrounding it, including, of course, the mode. The action sets the goal, the process, the available sources, what it needs, what it views, and judges, and evaluates. The mode has its position in what it views, judges, or evaluates. My current article “The Preliminary Discussions for Constructing a New Category Theory”(Lee, H. C. 2020) argues that we can view the world most appropriately when we put action at the center, or the basis of all the things. Thus the mode is defined: it is the way how the world appears to the observer or how the world works upon the experiencer. And the world changes as the actor acts upon it, and the mode changes itself accordingly.

일치 현상에 관한 새로운 시각

이향천 ( Hyang Cheon Lee ) 충남대학교 인문과학연구소 2014 인문학연구 Vol.49 No.3

일치 현상을 볼 때, 먼저 우리는 무엇들이 일치하는가의 문제를 최대한 넓혀 수많은 영역에서의 일치 현상을 다룸으로써 언어를 벗어나 가장 일반적인 의미에서 일치라는 패턴을 확립한다. 다음, 언어에서 보이는 일치 현상을 오직 언어 기호들만의 일로 보지 말고, 그 기호를 써서 행위를 펼치는 사람들을 보면서 무엇을 위해 사람들은 기호들을 일치시키는 행위를 하는가를 볼 필요가 있다. 이렇게 하면, 일치하는 항목들이 가진 성질이나 자질을 통해 일치 현상을 기술하고 설명하는 것이 아니라 (이런 기술은 반드시 부정합한 결과를 갖는다), 일치 행위라는 것이 하나의 선택적, 적응적 행위임을 밝힘으로써 언어에 따른 일치 방식의 다양성, 불일치 현상 등도 현실적으로 설명할 수 있다. Approaches to agreement can be divided into three: classical grammarian`s, typologists`, generative grammarians`. The first approach is based on morphology, and the agreement is treated as an inflectional matter of a lexical item in association with others. The regularities and exceptions are presented. Typologists collect a lot of data, classify them and compare them with each other and try to define the concept, and to provide the descriptional frame. Something like ‘Agreement Hierarchy’ has been proposed. Generativists have been busy contriving a nice derivation of terminal strings, and the agreement has been treated as a referential phenomenon for the task.. They considered agreement either as functional projection, AGRP, or as an operation ‘Agree’. It has been considered with a view to contriving how they could best match with case assigning or others to form a computatively efficient grammar. I propose to view the agreement phenomenon not as “The sign A agrees to the sign B”, but as “The man M agrees the sign A to the sign B”. This implies that we should take agreement as action. And the actions are associated with the purposes or motivations of the speakers, the causes and effects, the propensities, the strategies or scenarios. The purpose of agreeing may be identification, classification, characterization of things and events, etc. And the effect of agreeing can be found where it facilitates and speeds up processing of lexical items or phrases, which has been reported from the behavioral or neurological experiments. Agreeing as action takes the situations as ‘adaptive decision problem’ as well. At every stage the speaker meets the choice problem whether she should let A agree to B or not; if so, let it agree this way or that. We could postulate several strategic principles like Proximity Principle, Priority Principle, Availability Principle.

두 개의 탑: 형식과 개념

이향천 ( Hyang-cheon Lee ) 배달말학회 2016 배달말 Vol.58 No.-

토마스 쿤이 말한 것처럼 어느 시대나 그 시대를 주도하는 시각, 관행,접근법들의 패러다임들이 있다. 언어학에서 20세기는 소쉬르의 구조주의로부터 출발하여 촘스키를 거쳐 형식주의가 만연했다. 거의 모든 학자들을 그 사령탑 아래에 둔 강력한 패러다임이었다. 개념주의는 사색적 철학자들이 개발한 것으로 이천 년을 넘어가는 전통을 가지고 있다. 이 글은 형식주의나 개념주의와 같은 흐름이 왜 생겨나고 위세를 떨쳤는지를 다각도로 짚어 보는 글이다. 그 원인에 해당하는 사람들의 성향들이나 심적 원리들을 찾아보고 이들이 언어의 현실을 제대로 보여주지 못한다는 점을 제시한다. 언어는단순하지도 않고, 일반적 통사 규칙 하나로 꿰뚫을 수도 없고, 수시로 변하는 삶과 세계의 환경 속에서 나타나는 현상이다. 관찰자가 스스로에게서 떼어 놓고 고찰할 수 있는 독립된 대상도 아니다. 세상의 모든 것들은 직접적으로 간접적으로 연결되어 있다. 유기체와 환경, 그 속에 있는 수많은 것들, 관찰,행동, 행위, 욕망, 지식, 느낌 등 모두 연결되어 있다. 언어를 단순히 독립된 대상으로 놓고, 불변하는 추상적인 것으로 놓고 바라보는 시각은 성공할 수없다. 복잡, 다양, 다변하는 현실적 세계를 직시하고 거기에서 영역과 층위를 가로지르는 패턴들을 찾는 Bateson의 방식이 수준 높은 학문이 가야할 길로보인다. 그리고, 언어 연구는 실시간에 사람들 사이에 상호 작용하는 과정을 추적하면서 이뤄져야 한다. 이는 무척 어려울 것이지만 세계를 넓고, 높고,깊게 보는 길이기도 하다. 이렇게 하여 언어를 연구하면서 우리는 인간과 세계에 대한 이해를 깊게 할 수 있다. People consider linguistics as one of the most prominent discipline in the 20th century, like physics in natural science. And the dominant approach to language research has been the structuralism, initiated by Saussure and flourished by Chomsky. Structuralism is the study of forms of language. By pursuing forms of the things we can attain the clarity, simplicity, generality abstraction, and testability of the statements. With the coming of computational technologies, the formalism flourished most in Chomskyan linguistics. Under the command of formalism they proliferated so many groundless, non-real formal categories excluding considerations on the real properties of the language or the real aspects of the world. Conceptualism which advocates the view that the meaning of a linguistic expression is not the thing referred to but the thought of the thing, the concept, flourished since the ancient times among the philosophers and scholars, because it was easy for them to think about things in the study than to toil outside meeting the real hardships. The concepts were in the mind, i.e., near, and available to them. So the concepts have taken the place of the things. Thus the meaning of a linguistic expression has become a concept instead of the thing originally associated with. The concept of a thing x is the thought of the thing x, which takes the form like “a thing with such and such properties”. The particular objects need much more properties to describe or characterize them with. But the concepts have fewer properties. That makes abstractions and generalizations easier which enables general statements that scholars wish to make. And the conceptualists tend to neglect the particularities that the individual things or events have. They tend to neglect the realities and they have concocted so many concepts isolated from the real things, and these concepts have made the ecological niche of their lives. Both formalism and conceptualism favoring simplicity, abstractness, generality, have separated themselves more and more from the realities. The linguistic realities are complex, ever changing, various, interacting with the environment, which is hard to approach. But we need to confront the reality while practicing hard discipline. We need to observe the on-time interactive workings of linguistic activities. And we need to find the patterns that connect across the fields and levels to have a deeper understanding of the world. We need to develop new perspectives, new methods of doing science. Ecology which comprises relativism and the evolutionary theory will do a lot in developing new perspectives and tools to study the language and the world.

고유 명사의 의미

이향천(Hyang-Cheon Lee) 사단법인 한국언어학회 1989 언어학 Vol.0 No.11