『형태론』 14권 2호의 기고에 대한 논평

목정수(睦正洙) 형태론 2013 형태론 Vol.15 No.2

문두여격어 구문의 정체

목정수(Mok Jung soo)(睦正洙),이상희(Lee Sang hee)(李相喜) 형태론 2016 형태론 Vol.18 No.2

이 논문은 한국어에서 문두에 나타나는 여격어 ‘NP-에게’의 주어성을 다시 검토하고 문두여격어 구문의 구조를 분석하기 위한 것이다. 본 논의의 문제의식은 ‘한국어의 소위 ‘여격주어’라고 하는 것이 과연 다른 언어들에서 나타나는 여격주어/비주격주어 현상과 본질적으로 같은 것인가?’ 하는 질문에서 출발한다. 문두여격어 구문의 분석에서 두 번째 명사구의 통사적 지위, 이중주어 구문과의 구조적 차이가 명확히 밝혀지지 않았고, 문두여격어의 주어성 검증 과정에서도 아직 해결되지 않은 문제들이 존재한다. 필자는 문두여격어가 주어가 아니라는 관점을 취할 때 많은 문제들이 해결될 수 있다고 보았다. 또한 문두여격어 구문은 이중주어 구문과 별개의 구문이며, 그에 따라 두 구문의 통사적·의미적 차이가 발생한다는 것을 밝히고자 하였다. The objective of this study is to reexamine the subjecthood of the fronted dative constituent NP-ege and to analyze syntactically the construction. We raised a question of whether Dative Subject of Korean is identical to non-nominative subject of other languages. We need to answer what the second NP of this construction is, and how different this construction is from so-called double-subject constructions. Also, some issues remain unsolved in the earlier subjecthood tests. We think the key to solve the problems is to clarify the syntactic status of the fronted dative NP-ege . So I reexamined the subjecthood tests to prove that NP-ege is not a subject, but a locative. Finally, we claim that the fronted dative construction is one thing, and the double-subject constructions is another. The difference of argument structure in these two constructions brings about syntactic/semantic difference.

『형태론』 9권 2호의 기고에 대한 논평(1)

목정수(睦正洙) 형태론 2008 형태론 Vol.10 No.2

국어학 문법(文法) 용어(用語)에 대한 지식고고학적(知識考古學的) 탐사 -국어학과 일반언어학의 대화-

목정수(睦正洙) ( Mok Jung-soo ) 한국어문교육연구회 2022 어문연구 Vol.50 No.1

Korean grammar uses linguistic terminologies almost translated from the terms of Latin or Greek origin. Thus, the grammatical terminologies in Korean linguistics could have different meanings/signifiés from the origins and might be problematic in objective description and explanation of Korean as a natural language. This study aimed to determine the meaning of some major terms in Korean linguistics from a viewpoint of archeology of knowledge. We demonstrated several facts. First, “주격 (nominative)” has no one-to-one correspondence with “주어 (subject)”. Second, “보격 (complementive?)” is a very rare concept in general linguistics and not related to “보어 (complement)”. Third, “관형사 (adnoun)” is an exact epithet, which has been called “adjective” in general linguistics and it is not related to “관사 (article)” in Indo-European languages. Fourth, corollary to the third one, the function of the article is taken by particles “가, 를, 도, 는” which can be called postposed articles. Fifth, Korean case particles are not inflectional endings/suffixes but a sort of clitics, or more precisely, syntactic units. Accordingly, case particles in traditional Korean grammar should be reclassified as postpositions (후치사). Sixth, roots in morphological constructions are not the same as those in syntactic constructions. As “약속하다 (make a promise)” and “깨끗하다 (be clean)” are not morphological constructions but syntactic constructions, “약속 (promise)” and “깨끗 (clean)” are syntactic units, or words, but not roots. Furthermore, “하다 (do/make)” should not be classified as a derivational suffix but as a support verb as a syntactic atom. Finally, we specified that the terms “unaccusative verb” and “(un)ergative verb” in Perlmutter’s relational grammar are misconceptions generated by the misuse or abuse of the conventional usage of nominative-accusative / ergative-absolutive alignment pattern in typological studies.

『형태론』 8권 1호의 기고에 대한 논평(1)

목정수(睦正洙) 형태론 2007 형태론 Vol.9 No.1

『형태론』16권 1호의 기고에 대한 논평(1)

목정수(睦正洙) 형태론 2015 형태론 Vol.17 No.1

Matti Miestamo, Standard Negation

목정수(睦正洙),박정구(朴正九),백은희(白恩姬),이선웅(李善雄) 형태론 2010 형태론 Vol.12 No.2

선어말어미의 문법적 지위 정립을 위한 형태ㆍ통사적 고찰

목정수(Mok Jung-Soo) 사단법인 한국언어학회 2000 언어학 Vol.0 No.26

이중 주어 구문 새로 보기 - 기본문형 설정과 관련하여

목정수(Mok, Jung-soo),조서희(Cho, Seo-hee) 국어국문학회 2021 국어국문학 Vol.- No.196

In this article, we demonstrate in the framework of psychomechanics of language founded by Guillaume that the combination of NP and particles such as ‘ga’, ‘neun’ is not a morphological construction but constitutes a syntactic construction. And we claim that the form of basic sentence pattern should reflect information structure or discourse structure so that it can be consistent with the theory of markedness. So the patterns [X-(neun) Y-(ga) V-ending] and [X-(neun) Y-(leul) V-ending] replace the traditionally established patterns [X-ga Y-ga V] and [X-ga Y-leul V], respectively. The basic pattern [X-(neun) Y-(ga) V-ending] is, in itself, analysed as a simple sentence, even though it was regarded as complex sentence embedding ‘sentential predicate’ in school grammar. Among different types of ‘double subject constructions’, only two types like ‘코끼리는 코가 길다(Elephants have a long nose)’ and ‘나는 호랑이가 무섭다(I am scared of tigers)’ should be classified as basic sentenc patterns. In these constructions, the predicates ‘길-’ and ‘무섭-’ have the usages of two-place predicate. Therefore, their argument structures or semantic structure can be represented as follows; 〈X have_long Y〉 and 〈X be scared of Y〉. The other so-called double subject constructions such as ‘커피는 잠이 안 온다(With coffee, I can’t sleep’ or ‘철수는 마누라가 회사를 다닌다(As for Paul, his wife works in a company)’ are excluded from the category of basic sentence patterns, which are derived by topicalization from the marked construction ‘커피를 마시면/커피로는 (나) 잠이 안 온다(If I drink coffee/with coffee, I can’t sleep)’ or can be described as a part of the complex sentence as underlined in ‘철수는 마누라가 회사에 다녀서 돈 걱정을 안 한다(Paul does not have any financial concern, because his wife works in a company)’.

선어말어미 ‘-시-’의 기능과 주어 존대

목정수 ( Mok Jung-soo ) 국어학회 2013 국어학 Vol.67 No.-

The prefinal ending '-si-' have been traditionally defined as a subject honorific marker. But in this case, the concept 'subject(=주체)' is a little different from the grammatical concept 'subject(=주어)'. Korean grammar generally describes that '-si' doesn't accord only with the subject(=주어), but also with the subject(=주체). So '-si-' is split into '-si1-' and '-si2-'. Even certain Korean grammars describe '-si1-' as direct honorific and '-si2-' as indirect honorific. It is mainly because of the so-called nominative case marker 'i/ga' that Korean is characterized as having 'double subject constructions'. But I argue that the first NP1 is a real subject of the double subject constructions and the second NP2 is not a subject, so it should be described as a sort of complement in (1c), (1d), (1e), (1f), etc. In addition, it is recently reported that '-si-' is being abused/misused and that '-si-' is grammaticalized as a hearer honorific marker in (1i), (1n), (1o). (1) a. 얘들아, 할아버지 오셨다. 얼른 나와서 인사 드려라. b. 할아버지, 할머니도 안녕하시죠? c. 할아버지, 할아버지도 애인이 있으세요? d. 할아버지, 할아버지는 참 책도 많으세요. e. 할아버지, 왜 허리가 굽으셨어요? f. 할아버지, 할아버지도 마누라가 그리 무서우세요? g. 할아버지, 커피 그렇게 많이 드시면 잠이 잘 안 오십니다. 아셨죠? h. 할아버지, 보청기를 끼셔야 라디오가 잘 들리세요. i. 할아버지, 무슨 음악 좋아하세요? j. 할아버지, 건강한 한 해 되시길 바랄게요. k. 할아버지, 할아버지는 가격대비 요금제를 쓰시면 할인이 많이 되십니다. l. 할아버지, 지금 계신 곳이 어디세요? m. 할아버지, 자식들이 그리도 맘에 안 드세요? n. 할아버지, 이쪽으로 누우실게요. o. 할아버지, 할아버지는 돈이 남으세요. 저는 모자라는데요. But, in this paper I argue that '-si-' is always related to the real subject of the sentence, whether the subject is explicitly realized or not. So the hearer-related grammaticalized morpheme '-si-' in Lim(2011) is not necessary, and the concept 'situation subject' in Lee(2010) are not necessary to explain the usages of '-si-'. In fact, the hearer related to the morpheme '-si-' is simultaneously a real subject in the sentence. And this is just an expanded example of the double subject constructions.