“치킨 is 뭔들”: 양보 조건, 인식 양태, 부정 극성의 상호 작용

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study explores semantic-pragmatic role and syntactic structure of the Korean particle and connective ending ntul. Addressing its core properties—association with rhetorical questions, negative polarity, modal inter- pretation, and universal quantification interpretation—the paper proposes an integrated role of ntul as follows. First, the semantic representation of ntul is identified as a concessive conditional interpretation. Second, the concessive con- ditional clause containing ntul comes from a non-ideal world that does not meet expectations. Based on the Kratzer’s modal framework, the concessive interpretation of ntul arises from the mismatch between the real world of the assertion and the ordering source that allows for an ideal world of the conditional perfection of additive presupposition. Third, the syntactic characteristic of a concessive con- ditional clause with ntul is that its consequent is governed by a polarity functional head (Pol), which determines the truth value of the clause. The polarity head assigns a negative value to the consequent clause of the concessive conditional, thereby indicating that the actual world of the concessive conditional is in a non-ideal and abnormal world, thus giving rise to concessivity.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박지상, "한국어 수사의문문의 기능 및 형식 연구" 서울대학교 2023

2 양정석, "조건 구문과 양보 구문의 통사의미론" 67 : 51-91, 2020

3 박유경, "장형 부정의문문의 편향적 의미에 대하여" 67 : 53-91, 2020

4 임동식, "영어의 두 가지 양보조건문과 even의 의미에 대한 함의" 18 : 124-140, 2014

5 임동식, "영어의 even이 없는 양보조건문에 관하여" 97 : 85-105, 2023

6 성미향, "보조사 ‘(이)ㄴ들’의 의미와 분포에 대한 연구" 40 : 209-238, 2020

7 Kratzer, A., "Words,Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics" de Gruyter 38-74, 1981

8 Forker, D., "Toward a Typology for Additive Markers" 180 : 69-100, 2016

9 König, E., "The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective" Routledge 1991

10 Giannakidou, A., "Semantics" Walter de Gruyter 1660-1712, 2011

11 Gast, V., "Scalar Additive Operators in the Languages of Europe" 87 : 2-54, 2011

12 König, E., "Pragmatik in der Grammatik" Schwann 13-332, 1984

13 Zwarts, F., "Plurality and Quantification" Springer 177-238, 1998

14 Giannakidou, A., "Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items" John Benjamins 99-128, 2001

15 Ladusaw, W., "On the Notion “Affective” in the Analysis of Negative Polarity Items" 1 : 1-23, 1980

16 Geis, M. L., "On Invited Inferences" 2 (2): 561-566, 1971

17 Müller, S., "Normalität in der Sprache, Linguistische Berichte Sonderhefte vol. 22" Buske 275-299, 2016

18 Laka, M, "Negation in Syntax—on the Nature of Functional Categories and Projection" MIT 1990

19 Han, C. -h., "Interpreting Interrogative as Rhetorical Questions" 112 : 201-229, 2002

20 Breindl, E, "Handbuch der Deutschen Konnektoren 2. Semantik der Deutschen Satzverknüpfer" De Gruyter 901-962, 2014

21 Lewis, D., "Formal Semantics of Natural Language" Cambridge University Press 3-15, 2001

22 Guerzoni, E., "Even if, Facitivity and Focus" Universitat Pompeu Fabra 11 : 276-290, 2007

23 Kay, P., "Even" 13 : 59-111, 1990

24 Kratzer, A, "Conditionals" 22 (22): 1-15, 1986

25 von Fintel, K, "Conditional Strengthening" MIT 2001

26 Crevels, M, "Concession: A Typological Study" University of Amsterdam 2000

27 Goodhue, D., "All Focus is Contrastive: On Polarity (Verum) Focus, Answer Focus, Contrastive Focus and Givenness" 39 : 117-158, 2022

28 Haspelmath, M., "Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe" Mouton de Gruyter 563-640, 1998

29 Faller. M., "Additive Concessive Conditionals" 193 : 235-252, 2022

30 Rooth, M., "A Theory of Focus Interpretation" 1 : 75-116, 1992