2025, Vol., No.129

Korean Language & Literature 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.63

pISSN : 1229-1730 / eISSN : 2733-8738
https://journal.kci.go.kr/koreall

This study analyzed the vocabulary of Haenyeo in Sinan-gun, Wando-gun, and Goheung-gun, in Jeollanam-do, focusing on Haenyeo names, work type vocabulary, and work tools. Jeonnam Haenyeo used general terms such as ‘Haenyeo, Jamsu’, but the Native Haenyeo in Sinan and Wando also used other terms such as ‘Jamsukkun’ or ‘Murekkun.’ Jeonnam Haenyeo, like Jeju Haenyeo, also had their terms subdivided according to their abilities and skills, but there was no significant difference between Native Haenyeo and the Settled Haenyeo. Jeonnam Haenyeo mainly dive in the morning, using terms such as ‘Achim-mure, Achim-muljil’. The term ‘jamjil’, a vocabulary related to dive, was exclusively used by Sinan Native Haenyeo. Regarding the work space, Sinan and Wando Native Haenyeo used ‘Jjagji’ and Sinan Native Haenyeo used Jeonnam dialect such as ‘Bulteo, Gongdeog, and Gongdog’. In relation to work activities, the Native Haenyeo used vocabulary from the ‘Hwikkesoli’ category, while the Settled Haenyeo adopted vocabulary from the ‘Sumbisoli’ category used by Jeju Haenyeo. Most Jeonnam’s Haenyeo used vocabulary from the ‘Mangsali’ category, while terms from the ‘Hongsali’ category were exclusively used by Sinan Native Haenyeo. When catching sea urchins or octopuses, vocabulary such as ‘kkakkuli’ and ‘homeng-i’ was used, along with Jeonnam dialect variations of ‘galgoli’. The use of ‘homeng-i’ could distinguish Native Haenyeo from Settled Haenyeo. When harvesting seaweed, Sinan Native Haenyeo used the Jeonnam dialect ‘ognas’. Jeonnam’s Native and Settled Haenyeo did not use the term ‘homi’, which is commonly used by Jeju Haenyeo. Among the auxiliary tools, Shinan and Wando Native Haenyeo used the Jeonnam dialect for the ‘dasdol’. In the case of ‘tewag’, Jeonnam Haenyeo exclusively used vocabulary from the ‘dulungbag’ category, differing from Jeju Haenyeo.

This study discusses counterfactual verbs in Korean. First, it examines the relationship between counterfactuality and verb types to define what constitutes a counterfactual verb. Second, it reviews factual and non-factual verbs discussed in previous studies and, based on this, identifies the semantic characteristics of counterfactual verbs. Counterfactual verbs exhibit the following semantic properties: (1) they do not allow negative raising, (2) their internal factuality cannot be maintained through main clause negation, and (3) they allow the negation of the complement clause. Finally, focusing on verbs that express counterfactuality in Korean, this study categorizes them into four subtypes using both interpretative and expressive approaches: (1). verbs like ‘pretend,’ (2). verbs like ‘imagine’, (3). verbs like ‘misjudge’, (4). verbs like ‘slander’. Among these, verbs of the ‘pretend’, ‘imagine’, ‘misjudge,’ and ‘slander’ types inherently express counterfactuality and exhibit the semantic characteristics of counterfactual verbs.

In this study, I conducted two forms of cognitive experiments based on four cognitive modes of the PAM-L2 model to understand how Chinese participants assimilated Korean diphthongs into Chinese vowels. The first experiment was the L2-L1 cognitive experiment, which resulted in Chinese participants assimilating Korean diphthongs/야, 예, 와, 워, 여, 요, 유, 외, 위/ into the Chinese vowels ‘ya, ye, wa, wo, yao, you, you, wai, wei’. Furthermore, it was found that Korean experiences tend to have a lower degree of similarity between Korean diphthongs and Chinese stress vowels compared to non-Korean speakers. Additionally, according to the PAM-L2 model, Korean vowels/야-여/、/예-여/, /와-워/, /워-외/, /요-외/predicted as TC fairy tale mode, /요-유/, /요-여/predicted as SC or CG fairy tale mode, and /의-위/predicted as TC or CG fairy tale mode. We know that the SC fairy tale mode and CG fairy tale mode in the PAM-L2 model are more difficult to distinguish from TC fairy tale mode. So this prediction was confirmed through the second AX discriminant experiment. The second AX discrimination experiment showed that, regardless of their Korean language experience, both groups of Chinese participants found it harder to distinguish Korean diphthongs /요-유/, /요-여/, /의-위/ to be harder to distinguish than /야-여/, /예-여/, /와-워/, /워-외/, /위-외/. Such results indicate that using the PAM-L2 model to assess the learning status of the L2 language is reasonable.