http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
양태식 釜山水産大學校 1983 論文集 Vol.30 No.-
The semantic structure of language can be described by a network of sense-relations. In this paper, I would like to discuss two relations to the problem of describing the semantic structure of language in a precise and systematic way. I'll make use of a few notions borrowed from Coseriu's semantics. One of Saussure's dichotomies has to do with the relationships which hold between units in the language-system. These relationships are of two kinds: syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Therefore the semantic structure of a lexical system has two phases: syntagmatic and paradigmatic. The syntagmatic relation of a lexcal systems is the relationship that occurs when lexemes related to one another in a sentence. These are of two kinds: monopolistic coherence and unilateral coherence. Monopolistic coherence is the relation which all the semantic features of determining lexeme function as a distinctive feature of determined lexeme, and which the common features of determining lexeme function as a distinctive feature of determined lexeme, and which determined lexeme predicts determining lexeme unilaterally. Paradigmatic relations are of two kinds: the relation upon a lexeme and the relation upon a sememe. The former is illustrated by word-formation and idioms. The latter is composed antonymy, synonymy, the pertinence relation, and incomepatibility. Antonymy is oppositeness of meaning, and it contains three kinds: complementary antonym, polar antonym, and correlated antonym. Synonymy of a natural language is three types: sociolinguistic synonym, stylistic synonym, and etymological synonym. The pertinence relation imposes a hierachical structure upon a lexical system. There are two types: hyponymy and the part-whole relationship. Hyponymy is a kind of superordinate lexeme, but the part-whole relation is a part of superordinate lexeme. Incompatibility can be defined on the basis of the relationship of contradictorness between co-hyponyms.
양태식 釜山水産大學校 1980 論文集 Vol.25 No.-
The purpose of this paper is to research the modal category of Translation of Nogeoldae. The usages of the modal in Translation of Nogeoldae are as follows; The constituent mood -eusi-(-으시-) and -s∧p-(-??-) is used almost the same as in 15th century, but when hearer is an object in embedding sentence, equi NP- deletion is applicated in the above-mentioned sentences by non-linguistic context. Therefore the variant -sao-(-사오-) and -jao-(-자오-) of -s∧p-(-??-) express hearer-honourification. lately. The indicative mood -Φ-, -n∧-(-??-), -n∧n-(-??-) etc. has the same usage as 15th century, and the distributions of -Φ-, -n∧- seems to be morphological. From the non-deictic mood -teo-(-더-), -ta-(-다-) and the crucial mood-euni-(- 으니-), -kwa-(-과-), the recognition about person deixis that is the distinguisher of two formative disappeared in conjunction. -Teo- is used in the 1 person subject too, and -o-ni(-오-니 -) is substituted for -kwa-. Of the inferative mood, there is a -eul(-을-), which is used as simple adnominal marker. It is not a modal. The completed durative -a is-(-아잇-) stands in a line with -as- (-앗-), and -a is- is used in the sentence that represents a state, while -as- is used in the sentence that represents a change. In a compound category, preceding modal is a dominant term, and following modal is a recessive term. Therefore -euni-, -euri- that had chiefly used in a recessive term lost modality. And in the arrangement of a compound category, the constituent mood precedes the entire mood, and the completed durative that was not formed as one formative precedes other modals.