슬라브어의 시간 -시간 어휘 속에 반영된 슬라브인의 세계관-

정정원 ( Jung Won Chung ) 한국외국어대학교 국제지역연구센터 러시아연구소 2009 슬라브연구 Vol.25 No.2

본고에서는 슬라브어 시간 어휘의 내적 형식에 대한 고찰을 통해서 시간을 보는 슬라브인의 관점이 어떻게 언어에 반영되어 있는지를 살펴보고, 더 나아가 세상을 보는 슬라브인의 관점이 언어라는 의사소통 체계 속에서, 특히 어휘 속에 어떻게 녹아 있는지 살펴본다. 슬라브어 시간 어휘 속에는 시간을 인지하는 슬라브인의 관점이 드러나며, 순환적 시간관과 직선적 시간관이 드러나기도 한다. 또한 구체적인 시간 단위인 달, 계절, 요일, 하루에 대한 슬라브어 명칭과 내적 구조, 지시 내용은 슬라브인들의 생활상, 기후 및 가치관을 잘 반영한다. The concept of time is universal, but its conceptualization is rather culture-specific or language-specific. Vremjain Russian and vreme in Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, meaning `time`, come from a Proto-slavic form *verme, meaning `to turn, to rotate`, and it indicates that the ancient Slavic people consider the time as a revolving circle. It is common for the Slavic languages that the summer(leto, ljato, lato etc.) is read as a whole year and it shows that the very short and intense summer in the Slavs` habitation was considered as a starting point of the year or a border line of the years. The week-day names and their inner forms are also analogical among the Slavic languages but the Slavic people do not have their own word meaning `weekend`. They do not need to have the word `weekend`, because the Slavic words indicating Sunday(nedelja, nedela etc.) are combined with the inner form `no+work` with the meaning `the day of no works`, which the English `weekend` are supposed to implicate. The Slavic names of the months, unlike the other names indicating time units, are not analogical among themselves. In some Slavic languages month names coincide with the ones of the other European languages and the other Slavic languages have their own month names representing specific features of the nature and seasonal events. It is because the Roman calendar system was adapted relatively late in the Slavic world. Thus the Slavic time words show how the time is conceptualized and lexicalized in the Slavic languages and reflected on their inner forms. Eventually the Slavic time words reveal the way the Slavic people see the world, i.e., the ancient and modern Slavs` world view.

슬라브어 담화 직시와 대용

정정원 ( Chung Jung Won ) 경희대학교 비교문화연구소 2016 비교문화연구 Vol.45 No.-

본고에서는 슬라브어, 특히 러시아어, 폴란드어, 체코어, 불가리아어 담화 직시의 전반적 특징을 살펴본다. 슬라브어에서는 무엇보다도 근칭지시사가 담화 직시사로 기능하는 경향이 강하다는 공통점이 있지만, 개별 슬라브어에서 담화 직시사의 구체적 사용양상은 상이하다. 폴란드어와 체코어에서는 원칭지시대명사와 인칭대명사가 담화 직시사로 거의 기능하지 못하는 반면, 러시아어는 원칭지시대명사가 담화 직시사로 활발하게 사용되며, 인칭대명사도 사용 가능하다. 불가리아어에서는 원칭지시대명사가 담화 직시사로 거의 사용되지 않는 반면, 인칭대명사는 자주 사용된다. 이와 같이 슬라브어 담화 직시사는 개별 언어에서 상이하게 직시와 대용 기능을 수행하는데, 근칭, 원칭 지시대명사와 인칭대명사가 모두 담화 직시사로 기능하는 러시아어에서는 그것의 직시성이 다른 언어에 비해 두드러지며, 가장 분석적인 슬라브어인 불가리아어에서는 인칭대명사의 사용이 잦아 다른 슬라브어에 비해 담화 직시사의 대용기능이 두드러진다. This paper deals with Slavic discourse deixis comparing Russian, Polish, Czech and Bulgarian demonstrative and personal pronouns. In general, the Slavic proximal pronouns have precedence over the distal ones. Proximal pronouns, such as Russian eto, Polish to, and Bulgarian tova, are employed more frequently and widely than their distal counterparts to, tamto and onova. The distance-neutral pronoun to in Modern Czech was also a proximal pronoun in the past. These Slavic proximal and former-proximal pronouns function as a discourse deixis marker, whereas, in most other languages, the discourse deixis is mainly a function of distal or non-proximal demonstrative pronouns. However, the Russian, Polish, Czech, and Bulgarian discourse deixis differs in distal demonstrative and personal pronouns. In general, the Polish and Czech discourse deixis does not employ the distal demonstrative pronoun tamto or the personal pronoun ono. The Russian distal demonstrative pronoun to is actively used as a discourse deixis marker, and the personal pronoun ono can also be used to refer to the preceding discourse, though it is not frequent. In Bulgarian the distal demonstrative pronoun onova is rarely used to refer to a discourse, but the personal pronoun to frequently indicates a discourse that is repeatedly referred to in a text. The discourse deixis, which is a peripheral deixis and can be both deixis and anaphora, reveals different characteristics in different Slavic languages. In Russian, where all of the proximal, distal, and personal pronouns function as a discourse deixis marker, the deixis itself plays a crucial role in distinguishing these three pronouns from each other, revealing the speaker`s psychological, emotional, temporal, and cognitive proximity to or distance from a given discourse. In Bulgarian, the most analytic Slavic language, the personal pronoun is used more as a discourse deixis marker to reveal the highest givenness of a discourse, and it seems that Bulgarian discourse deixis is more anaphoric than the other Slavic discourse deixis is.

슬라브어의 생략과 화제, 테마, 주어: 러시아어, 폴란드어, 체코어, 불가리아어 문어텍스트 분석

정정원 ( Jung Won Chung ) 한국러시아문학회 2013 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.42 No.-

The paper deals with topicality, themehood and subjecthood of elliptical co-referent in Russian, Polish, Czech and Bulgarian literary texts. Grammatical subjects are ellipted more than any other components in all the analyzed Slavic texts. The subjecthood of the ellipted co-referent and the antecedent plays a crucial role especially in the ellipsis of Russian literary texts. As for topic and theme, they corelate with ellipsis on different levels. Topicality is a criterion for ellipsis on a sentence level, whereas themehood is a criterion for ellipsis on a text level. A theme is likely to be ellipted in Polish and Czech literary texts, where coreference reaches to an extrasentential antecedent. Polish and Czech pronouns of nominative case are rarely used to denote co-referentiality and null subject is unmarked. On the other hand, the use of explicit subjects are marked and it indicates the contrast or disambiguates intervening and main themes in Polish and Czech texts. Topicality is involved with ellipsis in Russian literary texts, where ellipted co-referent should have an intrasentential antecedent. Here co-referentiality outside the sentences can be indicated by pronouns. Coordinate construction, subjecthood of both the antecedent and the ellipted co-referent and short distance between co-referents are very important conditions for ellipsis of Russian literary texts. Bulgarian ellipsis in literary texts shares characteristics with both groups. Like Polish and Czech, the theme, even as a subject in the very beginning of a sentence can be ellipted and like Russian, pronouns are used relatively frequently.

러시아어 감정술어의 의미와 통사적 결합가의 상관관계

정정원 ( Jung Won Chung ) 한국러시아문학회 2010 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.35 No.-

The paper deals with the correlation between syntactic and semantic valencies of Russian Emotion Predicates. There have been a couple of studies on the syntactic valencies of Russian Emotion Predicates, but they focus just on the morpho-syntactic aspect. However, we payed more attention to the semantic roles and the predicate meanings. The semantic role of the Cause is essential in the emotion sentences. It can be represented as an adjunct with the free prepositions ot and iz-za which are not subordinated to the predicates. On the other hand, the semantic role of cause of emotion can be a complement, which is closely related to the predicate meaning and can not be omitted. The cause of the emotion is divided into several subgroups: the Stimulus, the Causer or initiator of the situation, the Object of thinking, the Object of avoidance, the Object of empathy and the Background Reason. In the Russian language the Stimulus takes dative case or na+accusative case. The Causer takes instrumental case. The Object of avoidance takes genitive case. The Object of thinking takes o+prepositional case or po+dative case. The Object of empathy and The Background reason take za+accusative case. In most of the Russian emotion predicate constructions the syntactic valency depends on the meaning of Emotion Predicates, and the syntactic valencies are closely related to the subtypes of the cause in these constructions.

슬라브어의 호칭 체계: 권력, 결속력, 거리감의 상관관계

정정원 ( Jung Won Chung ) 한국외국어대학교 러시아연구소 2011 슬라브연구 Vol.27 No.2

슬라브인들은 애칭과 부칭, 그리고 T형과 V형 혹은 3인칭 형태 등을 통해 청자와의 관계를 표현한다. 2인칭 대명사의 T형과 V형의 구분은 다른 대부분의 인구어에서도 발견되는 것이지만, 슬라브어에서는 T형의 사용이 비교적 넓으며, 여러 슬라브어에서 3인칭 형태를 통해 화자와 청자와의 거리를 넓힘으로써 상대방을 높이는 호칭법 또한 발견된다. 또한 슬라브어에서는 이름 자체를 부르는 방법이 발달되어 있어, 부칭과 애칭을 통해 사람들 사이의 관계를 정교하게 구분하는 것이 가능하다. 마지막으로 슬라브어에서는 "주인"이라는 의미의 어원을 갖는 pan과 господин으로 공식적인 호명을 하는 것이 가능한데, 이러한 호칭은 그 의미 때문에 공산주의 시절에 금지되고 ``동지``라는 의미의 단어로 대체되었으나, 이 새로운 호칭 형태는 원래 의도와는 달리 결속력을 강화시키기보다는 권력 차이를 강화시키는 역할을 담당하게 되었다. 본고에서는 객관적인 변수인 권력, 결속력이라는 개념 이외에 주관적인 변수인 수평적, 수직적 거리감이라는 개념을 도입하여 슬라브어 호칭 체계를 설명하였다. The paper deals with the Slavic address system that reflects the interpersonal distances. The Slavic people reveal their interpersonal relationships in the affectionates, patronyms, T/V forms and Mister/Mrs/Miss forms. Although the affectionate forms exist in most Indo-European languages, the Slavic affectionate forms are more often and widely used. In addition, some Slavic languages, such as Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian, and Bulgarian, have a three-name system consisting of a first name, a surname and a patronym. The Bulgarian patronym played a role of a surname until the early 20th century and the eastern Slavic patronyms function as a means to indicate that the given person is in the high social position or he is not quite close to the speaker. The T/V system is also found in the other European languages but the use of T form is relatively frequent and it is considered as an unmarked part of T/V opposition in most Slavic languages. Moreover, the second person can be named in the 3rd person form in some Slavic languages. The 3rd person form denoting second person makes the addressee higher than the speaker or formalizes the utterance situation, widening distance between the speaker and the addressee. The Slavic Mister/Mrs/Miss forms are divided into two morphological groups, i.e. ``pan`` type and ``gospodin`` type meaning "master/mistress." Due to the original meaning of these words presupposing unequal social statuses of the interlocutors, the communist authority banned their use. However, the alternative ``equal`` address forms meaning ``comrade`` obtained the formal and honorific meanings and ironically became a means to express "unequal" interrelationship in spite of its original lexical meaning. "Solidarity" and "Power" have been considered as a key concept deciding the address forms since Brown and Gilman`s study. However, the neutralization of the Power, unlike their assertion, does not always strengthen the Solidarity between the speaker and the addressee and vise versa. Therefore new parameter "interpersonal distance" had to be introduced. The existence of any of two distances, i.e. horizontal and vertical distances, can cause the lack of the Solidarity and consequently make the formal and honorific address forms appear.

감정동사의 사실성 재고

정정원(Chung Jung Won) 한국노어노문학회 2012 노어노문학 Vol.24 No.1

본고에서는 러시아어 감정동사의 사실성을 여러 측면에서 재고한다. 우선 영미권의 사실성 및 사실동사에 대한 연구들이 주로 취하고 있는 통사적인 기준을 통해 사실술어를 감별할 경우, 의미적으로 사실성을 가진 술어가 통사적 기준에 통과하지 못하거나, 의미적으로 사실성이 명시적으로 드러나지 않음에도 통사적인 기준에는 통과하는 경우가 발생한다. 즉 사실술어는 의미적, 통사적 기준 모두를 만족시키지 못하는 주변적인 사실성과 의미적, 통사적 기준을 통과하는 핵심적인 사실성을 포함하는 이질적인 범주이다. 따라서 사실술어의 어휘의미에 따라 사실성의 정도가 달라지는데, 사실술어 중에서도 앎의 인지술어와 감정술어의 사실성이 차이가 나며, 앎의 인지술어보다는 감정술어의 사실성이 좀 더 강하게 전제된다. 사실술어의 핵심을 이루는 감정술어와 결합하는 종속절 명제의 참성은 특정한 화용적 맥락에서 부정될 수 있다. 이것은 사실 또는 사실성 개념이 언어적 틀 안에서 해석될 때 실제 정황에 부합하는 절대적으로 참인 명제에서 나오는 것이 아니라 화자와 청자의 주관적인 평가에 의해 결정되는 상대적인 개념이기 때문이다. 러시아어에서는 동사, 형용사, 상태범주, 형동사 구문, 전치사 구문 등 다양한 술어 유형을 통해 감정을 지시할 수 있는데, 러시아어 감정술어 중에서도 지시되는 감정의 종류에 따라 사실성 발현 정도에서 차이가 나며, 주어진 감정술어가 과정성을 가지고 있느냐 그렇지 않느냐에 따라, 즉 감정동사인가 기타 감정술어인가에 따라, 명제에 대한 감정 주체의 사실적 평가만을 전제하느냐, 화자의 사실적 평가까지 전제하느냐가 결정된다. The paper deals with the factivity of Russian emotion verbs and compares it with the factivity of the other factive predicates and especially the other emotion predicates. The former studies on factive verbs tend to provide syntactic criteria for the factivity. Actually the factive is based on the semantic and pragmatic factors like truth value condition and presupposition, and those syntactic criteria do remain exceptional cases. On the other hand, it has been ignored that the lexical meaning of the verb plays an important role in its factive reading. The predicates of knowing and emotion which are considered as a representative of the factives differ from each other in the degree of the factivity. The emotion predicates are stronger factives than the predicates of knowing, where the factivity of the subordinate phrases can be easily cancelled under specific syntactic and pragmatic conditions. The emotion predicates themselves are not homogeneous due to their different degrees of the factivity, which depend more on the types of emotions or predicates. Though the emotion predicates seem to be endowed with the factivity by nature due to their lexical meanings, their actual factivity in fact can rather be determined by the subjective evaluation of the speaker and the addressee. Russian emotion predicates also are considered as having factivity due to their lexical meanings. However, it turned out that not all the Russian emotion predicates are absolute factives. The Russian emotion verbs do not always guarantee the factivity of the subordinate phrase, whereas the other Russian emotion predicates always have a factive reading. If both the subject and the speaker presuppose the factivity of the emotion predicate, it remains to be a factive. If the speaker does not presuppose the factivity of the subordinate phrase, the sentence does not have a factive reading. Therefore using Russian emotion verbs, the speaker can be more neutral about the factivity of the subordinate phrase, because the process meaning of the emotion verbs makes the speaker to hesitate to accept the truth of the subordinate phrase.

슬라브어 담화 직시와 대용

정정원(Chung, Jung Won) 한국노어노문학회 2016 한국노어노문학회 학술대회 발표집 Vol.2016 No.10

러시아어 담화직시

정정원(Chung, Jung Won) 충북대학교 러시아 알타이지역 연구소 2016 러시아학 Vol.- No.13

This paper investigates Russian pronouns of discourse deixis and their deictic aspects. Russian discourse deixis is expressed by means of the demonstrative pronouns eto ‘this’, to ‘that’ and the personal pronoun ono ‘it (neutral gender, singular number and third person)’. The proximal demonstrative pronoun eto ‘this’ is unmarked way to render discourse deixis and it reveals the given event’s perceptual, temporal, psychological proximity to the narrator-speaker, the high level of involvement of the subject in the given event and new or foreground information. The distant demonstrative pronoun to ‘that’ and the personal pronoun ono ‘it’, as a marked peripheral expression of discourse deixis, are not used as actively, widely and frequently as the proximal demonstrative pronoun eto ‘this’. The demonstrative pronoun to ‘that’ overtly expresses a perceptual, temporal and psychological distance from the narrator-speaker, the low level of involvement of the subject in the given event, and old or background information which are derived inter alia from the pronoun’s deictic meaning while the personal pronoun ono ‘it’ that is not supposed to demonstrate the overt distance merely implies a covert distance from the narrator-speaker. In any cases Russian pronouns of discourse deixis reveal the deictic information, just as the exophoric deictic pronouns, whereas generally the deictic information is neutralized in discourse deixis in other languages. This peculiarity of Russian pronouns of discourse deixis must come from at least two important characteristics of Russian discourse deixis. Firstly, the proximal demonstrative pronoun eto ‘this’ is unmarked in Russian discourse deixis. The proximal demonstrative refers to what is close while the distant demonstrative refers to what is not close, i.e., not only what is distant but also what is neither distant nor close, which makes the distant demonstrative can be used distance-neutrally in many languages. Namely, the Russian proximal demonstrative eto ‘this’ by nature cannot be neutral in the distance, while the distant demonstrative, such as English distant demonstrative that can. Consequently the other peripheral Russian pronouns of discourse deixis to that and ono it also cannot but reveal the lack of the proximity in overt and cover ways. Secondly, there are other means than the unmarked proximal demonstrative pronoun eto ‘this’ to express discourse deixis in Russian.Although the unmarked proximal demonstrative pronoun to ‘this’ is used also in Polish discourse deixis, the Polish distant demonstrative pronouns and personal pronouns are not employed in discourse deixis, and the proximal deictic meaning of to ‘this’, as the only means to express deictic discourse, is annulated. Meanwhile the existence of discourse deictic Russian to ‘that’ and ono ‘it’ makes the deictic contrast more vivid in Russian discourse deixis.

<언어,교육> : 러시아어와 폴란드어 문학텍스트 내 생략의 화용적 분석 -므로제크의 "남쪽으로의 도주"를 중심으로-

정정원 ( Jung Won Chung ) 경희대학교 비교문화연구소 2013 比較文化硏究 Vol.33 No.-

폴란드어 무주어 재귀구문과 -no/-to 구문의 수동성과 능격성 연구

정정원(Chung Jung Won) 한국슬라브유라시아학회 2010 슬라브학보 Vol.25 No.3

The Polish impersonal reflexives and ?no/to constructions are different from personal reflexives and passive constructions in some morpho-syntactic features. Above all, the Patient in these impersonal constructions has the oblique case, while the Patient in the passive and personal reflexive is promoted and obtains the nominative case. In addition, the Polish impersonal reflexives and ?no/to constructions do not allow the auxiliary verbs and the oblique case denoting the Agent. Therefore, they are classified as an active construction, which do not have grammatical subject, but imply indefinite agents. However, in these constructions the predicate is on the foreground and the Agent is on the background. The backgrounding of the Agent is one of the most important semantic features of the passive construction. Therefore from a semantic point of view these constructions can be classified as a passive construction. The Polish impersonal reflexives and ?no/to constructions can be called as pseudo-ergative constructions, where the Patient is not marked morphologically. From the viewpoint of lexical ergativity, the Polish impersonal reflexives and ?no/to predicates can be derived from the unaccusative and unergative predicates. The Polish impersonal reflexives and ?no/to constructions came from old Polish passive constructions. In their transformation into the active construction, only the Patient obtained the oblique case, but its predicate remains similar to the passive predicate and the meaning of covert indefinite agent is added to the predicate itself. The impersonal reflexives and ?no/to constructions of the other Balto-Slavic languages, like Ukraine, North Russian dialect and Lithuanian, are in different stages of evolution to active construction. Therefore, the Polish impersonal reflexives and ?no/to constructions are the product of evolution, rather than the result of Sprachbund or the influence of Uralic languages.