http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
李鳳 한국일본어문학회 2015 日本語文學 Vol.65 No.-
本稿では、日本語の「ト思う」と韓國語の「(라)고 생각하다」に關する比較分析を行った。「ト思う」と「(라)고 생각하다」は、それぞれ日本語學·韓國語學の領域において獨立して硏究されてきている傾向が强い。韓日對照硏究で本主題が注目されはじめたのは2000年代以降である。代表的なものとして、「ト思う」に對應する韓國語の飜譯例が「(라)고 생각하다」の他にも數多くあることを調べた鄭夏準(2006)の硏究、「ト思う」と「(라)고 생각하다」のモ一ダルな用法に相違があることをそれぞれ指摘した生越(2008)と李鳳(2008)の硏究があげられる。 ここでは、理論的なアプロ一チを取り、「ト思う」と「(라)고 생각하다」に關する類似点と相違について考察した。そして、Searle(1979)の發話行爲理論における發語內行爲の分類に基づいて「ト思う」と「(라)고 생각하다」を分析した結果、「ト思う」と「(라)고 생각하다」は、斷定型の發話內行爲と共起する共通点を持つことが明らかになった。また、指示型と拘束型の發語內行爲とは「ト思う」のみ共起し、「(라)고 생각하다」は共起しないことが解った。
李鳳 한국일어교육학회 2015 일본어교육연구 Vol.0 No.31
‘omou’in Japanese generally has been treated as a verb indicating “thought”, “judgment”and“recognition”(Okuda1983,Masuoka1987, Moriyama1988, Yamaoka2000, Miyazaki2002, etc.). Although in Japanese language‘omou’is a verb that represents mental activity, it has been observed that there is a disparate quality from otherallied verbs that indicate mental activities. And it has been considered that such a distinctive characteristic of‘omou’has usage as modal(Nakau1994, Nita1991, Yokomizo1998, Yamaoka2000, Ono2005 etc.). With regard to‘omou’in modal usage, many studies have been conducted, paying attention to the contents of sententialcomplement. However, most academic researches were carried out and analyzed by researcher’s arbitraryjudgment. Accordingly, this paper presents reasons for a clear argument by using Searle's (1979)’ Speech Act Theory asa theoretical framework and analyzed the ‘omou’of the modal usage. Searle (1979) classifies illocutionary act in5 groups(“assertives”,“directives”, “commissives”,“expressives”,“declarations”). Among them, ‘omou’co-occurwith assertives, directive and commissives illocutionary act but it doesn’t co-occur “expressives” and“declarations”. 本研究では、Searle(1979)の発話行為理論という理論的な枠組みを用いてモーダルな「思う」に関して考察を行った。先行研究では、モーダルな「思う」に関しては「思う」の補文に注目して多くの考察が行われている。しかし、殆の研究が研究者の内省によるものであり、その分析結果も其々であった(森山1992、Yokomizo1998、山岡2000、宮崎2001、小野2011)。そこで、本研究では、理論的な枠組みとしてSearle(1979)の発話行為理論を用いて、「思う」が共起する文の発語内行為について論拠をあげて示した。その結果、Searle(1979)の発語内行為の5分類のうち、「思う」は、断定型と指示型と拘束型の発語内行為と共起してヘッジとして使われることが明らかになった。
李鳳 한국일본어문학회 2018 日本語文學 Vol.76 No.-
‘kamoshiranei’ in Japanese has mainly been studied in the field of modality research as a semantic component of sentences. However, it has not been explicitly explained about the nature of cognition as a epistemic modality and its pragmatic function. In this paper, I use Coates(1983)’s ‘Principle of Inviolability of Epistemic Modality’ as a methodology, and it is examined the properties as ‘epistemic modality’. The properties of ‘kamoshiranei’ as ‘epistemic modality’ are as follows. First, ‘kamosiranei’ cannot mean the past. Second, ‘kamoshiranei’ is not included in the scope of the subjective mode. Third, ‘kamoshiranei’ is not included in the scope of the question. Also, in the previous researches, there were indications that ‘kamosirenai’ weakened the power of utterance, expressed the possibility, and expressed the politeness. In this article, it is explained that this property is functioning as hedge. Because hedge has the function to weaken the illocutionary force through the speaker conveying limited assurance about the proposition.