국어 의문문의 연구 = (A) Study of interrogatives in the Korean language

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to examine from a pragmatic point of view the various meanings which interrogative sentences might imply in the actual utterance situation. To this purpose, this study aims to describe systematically the meanings and functions of interrogative sentences by contemplating the contexts and dialogue structures in which interrogative sentences were uttered. This approach might be said to be 'pragmatic' in that the meanings of utterances are explained at the level of the actual usage.
To discuss the subjects of this study, some basic concepts were defined in Chapter 2, where interrogative sentences were more strictly defined in terms of form and contents. An interrogative sentence was defined as a linguistic form to express the speaker's uncertainty (his or her ignorance) by employing such formal marks as interrogatives, interrogative suffixes, intonation, etc. The utterance situation or context in which this linguistic form was actually utilized, was considered for the understanding of the meaning which this linguistic form might imply', specifically, the concepts of presuppositions, assumptions, and setting were employed in this study. To understand the meanings of interrogative sentences on the basis of the context, interrogative sentences were grouped into two types: (1)general interrogative sentences and (2)special interrogative sentences. The two types of interrogative sentences were discussed, respectively, in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.
The contexts and pragmatical meanings of general interrogative sentences were examined in Chapter 3. Of various general interrogative sentences, wh-questions offer little information of the speaker's interrogatory utterance and have a simple context. Whether wh-questions has an affirmative or negative form is determined on the basis of the setting of the questions, accordingly the wh-questions has a different presupposition. On the other hand, yes-no questions have a very complicated context and are grouped into three types on the basis of the existence and scope of the assumption, Yes-no questions might be said to be assumption-dependant(I, II) in case that there is an assumption in the speaker's utterance. Such yes-no questions are subgrouped into two types (1)one type of yes-no questions in which their assumptions have effect on the specific element of the speaker's utterance (yes-no questions I) and (2)the other type of yes-no questions in which their assumptions have effect on the whole scope of the speaker's utterance (yes-no questions II). Also, yes-no questions might be said to be assumption-neutral in case that there is no assumption in the speaker's utterance. The presupposition and assumption of yes-no questions are different according to the type of the question, and whether yes-no questions has a affirmative or negative form is determined on the basis of the setting of the question. Accordingly, yes-no questions might imply different pragmatical meanings. It has been thought up to now that alternative questions have a simple structure in which two or more propositionss are disjunctive.
Alternative questions, however, have various structures. The structures of an alternative questions are different according to the speaker's assumption. Alternative questions has a presupposition in which each proposition is just combined, and has the same presupposition as wh- questions.
More than interrogatory, special interrogatives including confirmative, rhetorical, imperative, and echo questions, were examined in Chapter 4. Confirmative questions, are used to strengthen the speaker's assumption by using the suffix ' ￣c˘i?' and the ' ￣c˘i anh￣' which originated from tag questions. The form of a confirmative questions is entirely identical with that of the speaker's assumption. Consequently, the setting of confirmative questions plays no role in determining its interrogatory form and, semantically, has little effect on the speaker's assumption. Meanwhile, the setting of rhetorical question plays a decisive role in interpreting the meaning of the question. The setting of rhetorical questions is always taking a negative form which is contradictory to the speaker's intention and thus the meaning of the rhetorical questions reflect on the speaker's attitude which is contradictory to the setting. The repetitive appearance of an identical component is recognized as an exclusive mark which permit an interrogative sentence to be interpreted only as rhetorical questions. Imperative questions also reflect on the speaker's negative attitude towards the hearer's behavior in the discourse. Thus the utterance of an imperative questions occurs when the speaker's attitude towards the hearer's behavior in the discourse is contradictory to the speaker's intention. The setting has a more remarkable function in echo questions and takes a form of precedent utterance. The meanings of echo questions are different according to the question's motive, or the repeating speaker's intention.
This study aims to describe systematically from a pragmatic points of view the meanings of interrogative sentences by employing such contextual elements as presuppositions, assumptions, settings, the speaker's intention, etc. This study also adopted an approach of dialogue analysis as a method to examine the pragmatic functions of the interrogative sentences. There are, however, numerous theoretical or methodological problems to be contemplated before the dialogue structure is set up. Further studies are required to solve those problems of the dialogue analysis. Nevertheless this study suggested a possibility that the meanings of utterances can be understood synthetically and synthetically by means of an approach of dialogue analysis.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• 제1장 서론 = 1
• 1.1 연구목적 = 1
• 1.2 연구사 = 3
• 1.3 연구방법과 범위 = 6
• 제2장 의문문의 개념과 화맥 = 11
• 2.1 의문문과 의문의 개념 = 11
• 2.1.1 의문문의 형식 = 12
• 2.1.2 의문문의 내용 = 17
• 2.2 의문문의 유형 = 26
• 2.3 화맥 = 28
• 2.3.1 화맥의 양상 = 28
• 2.3.2 전제 = 29
• 2.3.3 가정 = 33
• 2.3.4 장면 = 36
• 2.3.5 의문문의 화맥 = 37
• 2.4 요약 = 44
• 제3장 일반의문문의 화용의미 = 46
• 3.1 설명의문문의 화용의미 = 46
• 3.2 판정의문문의 화용의미 = 54
• 3.2.1 판정의문문의 화맥 = 54
• 3.2.2 긍정·부정의문문의 화용적 용법 = 56
• 3.2.3 가정의존적 판정의문문 = 60
• 3.2.4 가정중립적 판정의문문 = 82
• 3.3 선정의문문의 화용의미 = 87
• 3.3.1 선정의문문의 이접구조 = 87
• 3.3.2 선정의문문의 화맥과 의미 = 92
• 3.4 요약 = 97
• 제4장 특수의문문의 화용의미 = 99
• 4.1 확인의문문의 화용의미 = 99
• 4.1.1 확인의문문의 설정 = 99
• 4.1.2 확인의문문의 화맥과 의미 = 108
• 4.2 수사의문문의 화용의미 = 116
• 4.2.1 수사의문문의 설정 = 116
• 4.2.2 수사의문문의 화맥과 의미 = 119
• 4.2.3 수사의문문의 형태·통사적 표지 = 131
• 4.3 명령의문문의 화용의미 = 145
• 4.4 반복의문문의 화용의미 = 149
• 4.4.1 반복의문문의 의문형식 = 150
• 4.4.2 반복의문문의 화맥과 의미 = 151
• 4.5 요약 = 155
• 제5장 의문문의 대화분석 = 157
• 5.1 대화문석의 기본개념 = 157
• 5.2 의문문의 대화구조 = 160
• 5.2.1 최소대화구조에서의 의문문의 기능 = 160
• 5.2.2 대화구조의 선호성 = 171
• 5.3 요약 = 177
• 제6장 결론 = 179
• 참고문헌 = 182
• ABSTRACT = 207