Space in Tense : The Interaction of Tense, Aspect, Evidentiality, and Speech Act in Korean

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 논문은 한국어 데이터를 바탕으로 시제, 상, evidentiality 및 speech act의 상호작용을 연구한다. 한국어가 두가지 유형의 지시적 시제를 (deicic tense)--단순 지시적 시제 (simple deictic tense)와 공간 지시적 시제 (spatial deictic tense)--가지고 있음을 제안함으로써, 시제, 상, 서법및evidentiality까지 통괄하는 체계적 시제 해석을 제공 할수 있게 한다. 본 연구의 목적은 한국어에서 evidentiality가 시제및 상체계의 일부분으로 분석되어져야 함을 보여줌으로써 언어 전반적인 시상체계에 대한 형식 의미론적인 접근에 새로운 기여를 하고자한다. 첫째, 시제 형태소 '-었'과 '-었었'을 분석하고 이 두 형태소의 의미차이가 인구어에서의 완료형 (perfect)과 과거시제의 의미차이와 일치함을 주장한다. 둘째, 형태소 '-더'의 분석에는 시간 개념뿐만 아니라 공간적 의미까지 언급되어야 함을 주장한다. '-더'가 과거시제 형태소이면서 동시에 화자가 위치한 장소까지 가르킨다는 것이다. 보다 구체적으로 말하면, 화자가 문제의 사건을 (직접 evidential의 경우) 혹은 사건에 대한 증거를 (간접 evidential의 경우) 지각 (perceive)한 시간과 장소를 ('그때 그곳') 의미하고 이는 곧바로 evidentiality와 연결된다. 이점에서 본 논문에서는 '-더'를 공간 지시적 과거시제 형태소로 정의하고 '-네'를 이에 대립하는 공간지시적 현재시제 형태소로 정의한다. 더 나아가서, 위에 분석에 따른 결과로 '-었'과 같은 형태소가 중의성을 띰을 주장한다. 예를 들어, '-었'이 무표상황에서는 완료형으로 기능하지만 공간 지시적 시제 형태소가 있을시에는 간접 evidential로 기능한다는 것이다. 결론적으로, 한국어의 시제, 상, 서법형태는 병행하는 두개의 체계하에서 운용된다는 것이다. 하나는 단순 지시적 시제와 상을 바탕으로 구성되고 다른 하나는 공간 지시적 시제와 evidentiality를 바탕으로 구성된다는 것이다. 이에 더 나아가서, 본 논문에서는 단순 시제와 상을 나타내는 문장과 공간시제와 evidential을 나타내는 문장 사이에 내재하는 근본적 차이점이 speech act에 있음을 밝힌다. 다시 말해서, 단순 문장과 달리 evidential 문장은, 심지어 직접 evidential 문장 조차, 단언적(assertive)이지 않다는 겄이다. 즉 evidential 문장은 전달코자 하는 명제에 대한 화자의 확신을 담고 있지 않다는 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This dissertation investigates the interaction of tense, aspect, evidentiality, and speech acts, using Korean as a test case. I propose that Korean has two types of deictic (indexical) tense-simple deictic tense and spatial deictic tense. This makes possible a systematic account of the temporal interpretation of tenses, aspects, and moods that also incorporates evidentiality. By showing that the Korean evidential system should be analyzed as part of the tense-aspect system, this study contributes to current research on the formal analysis of inflectional systems in the world’s languages.
First, I give an analysis of the simple suffix -ess and the double form -essess. The distinction between these two parallels the distinction between the perfect and the past manifested in most Indo-European languages. The simple form -ess is a perfect and the double -essess is a deictic past tense. Next, I treat the suffix -te and argue that not only temporality but also the notion of space is relevant to its analysis: it is a spatial deictic past tense denoting a certain past time when the speaker perceived either a given event itself or some evidence of the event. Thus, -te directly relates to evidentiality. In addition, -te has a present tense counterpart, the spatial deictic present form -ney. My analysis results in the claim that some suffixes are ambiguous between aspects or moods and evidentials. For example, if the suffix -ess occurs with a simple deictic tense, it functions as a perfect. But if it occurs with a spatial deictic tense, it functions as an indirect evidential.
In sum, a definitive analysis of Korean tense, aspect, and mood morphology incorporates two distinctions that operate in tandem : one distinction is simple deictic tense and aspect and the other distinction is spatial deictic tense and evidentiality. The basic difference between evidential sentences and non-evidential sentences is captured in terms of speech acts: unlike non-evidential (declarative) sentences, evidential sentences do not make assertive claims. Even direct evidential sentences in Korean do not express the speaker’s commitment to the truth of the proposition described.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Approval = ⅱ
• Abstract = ⅲ
• Dedication = ⅴ
• Acknowledgments = ⅵ
• Table of Contents = ⅸ
• List of Tables = xii
• List of Figures = xiii
• Abbreviations = xiv
• Chapter 1: Introduction = 1
• 1.1 Goals of the investigation = 1
• 1.2 Theoretical assumptions concerning tense, aspect, and eventuality = 2
• 1.2.1 Tense as deixis = 2
• 1.2.2 The referential theory of tense = 6
• 1.2.3 Reference time = 9
• 1.2.4 Eventualities and the event argument = 10
• 1.2.5 Aspect as operators = 11
• 1.2.6 Perfect as an operator tense denoting anteriority = 12
• 1.3 Predicative suffixes in Korean = 15
• 1.4 Organization of the thesis = 21
• Chapter 2: Deictic and Non-Deictic Tenses in Korean = 25
• 2.1 The simple form -ess. = 26
• 2.1.1 Previous analyses. = 26
• 2.1.2 -Ess as an anterior (perfect). = 39
• 2.2 The double form -essess. = 44
• 2.2.1 Previous analyses. = 44
• 2.2.2 -Essess as a past tense. = 53
• 2.3 The semantics of -essess versus -ess: Deictic versus non-deictic. = 60
• Chapter 3: Semantics and Pragmatics of the Perfect (Anterior) = 69
• 3.1 Semantics of the perfect. = 70
• 3.1.1 Different readings of the perfect. = 70
• 3.1.2 The relation between the semantics of the perfect and the present. = 78
• 3.2 Pragmatics of the perfect. = 86
• 3.2.1 The perfect, discourse topic, and current relevance. = 86
• 3.2.2 Current relevance and the presupposition of the perfect. = 92
• 3.3 The Present Perfect Puzzle = 98
• 3.3.1 Rethinking the P-Definiteness Constraint = 103
• 3.3.2 Another puzzle: Exceptions to the Deictic T-Adverbial Constraint = 107
• Chapter 4: Spatial Deictic Tense = 113
• 4.1 The suffix -te. = 114
• 4.1.1 Past imperfective approaches. = 115
• 4.1.2 Evidential approaches. = 121
• 4.1.3 -Te as a spatial deictic tense. = 135
• 4.2 -Ney as the spatial deictic present tense. = 144
• 4.3 Conclusion = 151
• Chapter 5: Evidentials in Korean = 154
• 5.1 Evidential typology. = 155
• 5.2 The spatial deictic tense and evidentials. = 158
• 5.2.1 Evidentials: -ess, -keyss, and Ø. = 159
• 5.2.2 Modal meanings of the inferential indirect evidentials. = 173
• 5.2.3 Modality in the definition of evidentials. = 185
• 5.3 Reportative evidentials. = 187
• 5.3.1 Reportative forms: -tanta (-tay) and -tatela (-tatey). = 188
• 5.3.2 Reportative versus inferential evidentials. = 195
• 5.4 Evidential vs. non-evidential sentences. = 199
• 5.4.1 Evidential sentences lack assertive points. = 200
• 5.5 Conclusion. = 206
• Chapter 6: Conclusions and Further Issues = 210
• 6.1 Spatial deictic tenses, world variables, and speech acts. = 212
• 6.2 Syntactic structures of evidential vs. non-evidential sentences. = 219
• 6.3 Tense and aspect. = 224
• 6.3.1 Imperfective. = 225
• 6.3.2 Progressive and resultative. = 232
• 6.4 Tense interpretation in subordinate clauses. = 238
• 6.4.1 Imperfective and de se (simultaneous) interpretation. = 239
• 6.4.2 Deictic tense and the “Sequence of Tense” phenomenon. = 242
• 6.4.3 Are there indexicals that can shift the context? = 251
• 6.5 Conclusion. = 255
• Bibliography = 258