KJCKorea
Journal Central

This paper aims to analyze the desire of the bear in The Legend of Gomnaru, considering the possibility that the group comprised bears, humans, and cubs could not be a family. The scenes in which the bear throws herself with his cubs after the man leaves her are analyzed. Three versions of The Legend of Gomnaru are used for this analysis. The desires of the bears are divided into three groups: the bear that immediately throws herself with her cubs after the man leaves; the bear that throws herself after throwing her cubs in the river, and the bear that shows her cubs to the man to make him back and waits for him to come back then throws them into the river and finally drown herself. In all three versions, the bear recognizes their cubs as independent beings, in that she causes her cubs to die due to the frustration of her desires. The cub comes into existence as a separate entity from the mother through the mother's childbirth, and in all three versions, the mother's death is read as a failure to accept the cub as a deterritorialized entity from the mother's territory. From this, it is clear that the typical family structure consisting of father, mother, and children, does not appear in The Legend of Gomnaru. This could mean that the bear's desire is centered on a man, not her family. In all three versions, the death of the bear shows that she has been deterritorialized from the territory of her desire for a man and has not reached the reterritorialization of building herself. One of the versions showed that the bears attempt to get the man to return by showing the cubs to the man, which suggests that the bear's view of family organization can be read differently from the other two versions. In the version where the bear witnesses the death of her cub, the bear's behavior is interpreted as a kind of self-inflicted harm caused by depression or melancholy due to the failure to fulfill her desires on the man as the territory to reterritorialize herself. The difference in the bear's perception of the family demonstrated the possibility of reading desire as a way to fill a deficiency, and the possibility of reading it as a kind of operation outside the category of the family. Through this, this study aimed to show a new view of the establishment of family and the operation of the bears’ desires to the existing studies that had analyzed The Legend of Gomnaru compared with myths.

In this article, we compared <Seolgongchanjeon> and <Geumbongchaegi> from 『Jeondeungsinhwa』 and focused on the phantom of Ghost possession used in the two works. The result is that although the two works have something in common, they also seem to have differences. What they have in common is that first, the main character goes to the underworld after death, but is allowed to return to this world by an Official of the underworld. Second, the main character's soul returns to this world and is possessed by another's body. Third, the way of possession is through the body of the main character's relatives or family. Fourth, the soul relieved its resentment by possessing another person's body. Fifth, the person who has been possessed is sick or has no energy. Finally, after the Ghost’s possession, the behavior of those who were possessed is the same as the behavior of the one who possessed. The difference between the two works, first is that in <Geumbongchaegi> there is no exorcism, while in <Seolgongchanjeon> there is an exorcism scene. Second, the stories of the underworld were barely mentioned in <Geumbongchaegi>, but the stories of the underworld were mainly mentioned in <Seolgongchanjeon>. Through this comparison, in terms of the Ghost possession aspects, we can see that Korea's <Seolgongchanjeon> and China's <Geumbongchaegi> from 『Jeondeungsinhwa』 have something in common, and there are also many differences. The <Seolgongchanjeon> which was created at a later time, may borrowed the motif of the Ghost possession of <Geumbongchaegi>, but <Seolgongchanjeon>’s aspect of the Ghost possession has its strong unique characteristics. So <Seolgongchanjeon>’s writer Chae-su's independent invention seems to be stronger than borrowing. Although this Ghost possession motif brought popularity to <Seolgongchanjeon>, it also caused fatal damage to this work. In other words, <Seolgongchanjeon> was banned by the Emperor and then burned. Also, due to this damage, later works could no longer utilize the Ghost possession motif. Accordingly, only <Seolgongchanjeon> which uses the Ghost possession motif in Korean novels has its own unique meaning, unlike many Chinese novels about the Ghost possession motif.

The paper presents the distributional and discourse properties of the coordination of distinct types of interrogatives in English. Ross (1967) claims that sentences joined by and with different types of questions as conjuncts are considered questionable, whereas sentences coordinated with or are deemed ungrammatical. To determine whether there is a grammaticality distinction between sentences joined by and and or with dissimilar types of interrogatives as conjuncts, we thoroughly analyze the pertinent data from corpora. As a result, we find that, contra Ross (1967), the coordination of all types of interrogatives is possible for both and and or, unless the events of the conjuncts involved are disconnected. To implement the idea into a constraint-based construction grammar, we propose a pragmatic constraint on discourse coherence relations based on Kehler (1995), which can be a part of a revised version of the Coordination Rule by Sag et al. (2003). The analysis we propose here, hence, allows us to give a simple explanation on how to generate a proper set of coordinated sentences and to predict the acceptability of sentences containing the coordination of distinct types of interrogatives in English.