KJC Korea
Journal Central

The purpose of this study is to confirm whether the defining vocabulary of particles and endings in Korean Basic Dictionary is controlled and to propose an improvement so that can help Korean learners understanding. To this end, 357 definitions of particles and 757 definitions of endings were examined. In addition, it was compared and determined whether defining vocabulary used only once was properly used. As a result, 76 out of about 388 defining vocabulary of particles were used once. Among them, nouns accounted for the highest percentage with 37, followed by low-frequency vocabulary in the order of verbs, adjectives, adverbs, adnominals, connective endings, suffix, auxiliary particle. And 70 out of about 570 defining vocabulary of endings were used once. Also, nouns accounted for the highest percentage with 26, followed by low-frequency vocabulary in the order of verbs, adjectives, adverbs, auxiliary adjectives, connective endings, auxiliary verb, auxiliary particle, numeral. In this paper, in the case where it is determined that modification is necessary among low-frequency vocabulary, Standard Korean Language Dictionary, Korea University Korean Dictionary, Sejong Corpus were analyzed together and suggested improvement.

This paper reviews the concept of purifying the Korean language and the direction of research it is headed in as discussed by researchers of language purification. It further examines the current state of refined words in terms of their maintenance and policy. Current line of research in language purification is limited in that it is restricted to generating refined terms. In order to overcome such limitation, the need to address the fundamental questions of ‘why’ and ‘how’ language purification should take place is highlighted. Successful language purification may be achieved provided the goals of purification as well as those put forth by the policies are clear and explicit. Six steps of language purification and how they should be implemented as a policy is suggested. Finally, the paper argues that language purification as a policy must be met with close inspection and evaluation, whose findings should be reincorporated into the process of creating refined words, allowing for a purification policy that is harmonious.

When the speaker constructs a proposition and the corresponding sentence, she bases their structure on her or the hearer's expectation. Therefore, expectation is important in linguistics and cognitive science. When she experiences an event, this event can accord to expectation or not. This accordance or non-accordance can be encoded by linguistic expressions. ‘anina talulkka’ and ‘anin key anila’ are accordance markers, while ‘selma’ is a non-accordance marker. Various degree expressions can also be analyzed in terms of expectation. Expectation-related phenomena can be modeled by Bayesian inference

This paper aims to distinguish various kinds of meaning types, to point out several problems on the current usage in Korean linguistics, and to propose a desirable way of using these terminologies. Referential meaning and conceptual meaning are two aspects of signifié of language as a sign, semantic meaning and pragmatic meaning are concepts related to the level of meaning production. Basic meaning and extended meaning are distinctions of ‘senses’ that polysemic words can have. Descriptive meaning, expressive meaning and social meaning are the distinctions for ‘semantic components’. I propose that by clarifying these differences, semantic description of grammatical forms can be made more efficient. Even though efforts to find ‘core meaning’ in semantic description of the grammatical forms continued, the relationship between core meaning and secondary meaning has not been clearly presented. Furthermore, I believe that there is more room for debate whether finding this ‘core meaning’ is a necessary task in all the semantic description of grammatical forms.

The purpose of this thesis is to show the structural properties and semantic interpretation of ‘-eul deutha-’ constructions. The meaning of ‘-eul deutha-’ constructions can be interpreted in three ways of [conjecture], [intention], and [pretense], with the comprehensive meaning being ‘possibility.’ The lexical item ‘-eul’ expresses the tense and ‘deut’ the meaning of ‘possibility.’ According to the meaning of ‘ha-’, the structure of ‘-eul deutha-’ can be categorized into two types : an epistemic modal construction and a root modal construction. When ‘-eul deutha-’ means [conjecture], ‘ha-’ functions as a support verb without any lexical meanings. However, when ‘-eul deutha-’ is interpreted as [intention] or [pretense], ‘ha-’ has the lexical meaning of a heavy verb. These structural features of ‘-eul deutha-’ constructions can also explain the restrictions on auxiliary predicate constructions when they are combined with other aspectual or modal phrases.