체계적인, 너무나 체계적인

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

J. Park (2006) aimed to systematically describe which subdomain the modal meanings of endings belong to and what kind of opposition they make. However, this book seemed to have some problems with respect to theory and its applications because of excessive systematicity. First, this book claimed that the term ‘mood’ is unnecessary in Korean; however, I think that this opinion results from Indo-European prejudices. In defining the mood category, the criteria of meaning and distribution are more important than the criterion of form such as verbal morphology. Mood as a grammatical category can express the meanings that contrast with declarative and assertive, and it should show the obligatoriness and mutual exclusiveness. Second, although a speaker’s subjective qualification is an essential component in defining modality, the equation of this component with performativity has some problems. This claim does not explain the phenomenon that modal endings can appear in subordinate clauses. In addition, as the adoption of subject-oriented modality instead of dynamic modality cannot cover both the domains such as participant-internal modality and non-deontic participant-external modality. Third, action modality has two problems. The sentences where action modality is expressed may have adjective and copular predicates; in addition, the boundary between the action modality and sentence type is arbitrary. Four, this book claimed that epistemic modality has four kinds of subdomain such as ⅰ) certainty ⅱ) information source ⅲ) assimilation ⅳ) hearer knowledge. However, the statuses of ⅲ) and ⅳ) are not the same as ⅰ) and ⅱ). Five, this book claimed that the person constraint of the ending ‘-te-’ derives from the new knowledge meaning of ‘-te-’. Nevertheless, considering the fact that the ending ‘-kwuna-’ has no person constraint which is claimed to have the new knowledge meaning, it is more reasonable that the person constraint of ‘-te-’ derives from past perception meaning of ‘-te-’. Six, this book claimed that ‘-ney, -kwuna’ is related with the evidentiality domain such as perception, inference, and ‘-ci’ has hearer’s already knowing meaning. However, ‘-kwuna-’ does not have any evidential meaning, and ‘-ci-’ is frequently used in the context where the hearer’s already knowing meaning cannot be found.