2009, Vol.29, No.

Korean Semantics 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 1.11

pISSN : 1226-7198 / eISSN : 2734-0171
https://journal.kci.go.kr/semantics

Kang, Soo-jin. 2009. An Cognitive semantic's explanation about grammaticization of ‘-ghet-’ in Korea. Korea Semantics, 29. This papers aims to explain developmental meaning of ‘-ghet-’ in Korea and to provide some evidence about cognitive device working at developmental meaning. One of the leading future tense in Korean language states that ‘-ghet-’ is originated from ‘-geh haeut-’(that is a causative expression). Derivation of ‘-geh haeut-’ has been a major issue since it does not only change its form, its definition has also changed from its derivation. This papers will explain what derives the change of its definition in Cognitive Semantic‘s point of view. Many previous study has been written based on ‘-ghe haeut-’ derivation (theory that says ‘-ghet-’ is originated from ‘-geh haeut-’ to ‘-heh yeut-’ to ‘-get-’), Those previous study states that the definition had changed as writter relates their axiom to meaning of a morpheme in order to explain its change. But, differenciate of this study from other studies is that this study is going to discuss that causative expression already includes future modality meaning, base on the ICM(idealized cognitive model) by G. Lakoff(1987). Also there are some example that modern language of ‘-ghet-’ includes definition of causative expression. This is one of the example when accepting request from other, have to say “al-ghet-seup-ni-da” that has future modality meaning instead of “ap-ni-da” that had present tense meaning, or “al-aht-seup-ni-da” that has past tense meaning in order to be polite. These examples support this papers' argument.

Byung-ryul Ryu. 2009, On the conjunction of ‘-(i)na -((i)na)’ in Korean. Korean Semantics, 29. This paper will be concerned with the syntactic distribution and the semantic interpretation of the disjunction ‘-(i)na’ in Korean. The disjunction ‘-(i)na’ is basically interpreted as a Boolean disjunction, but when looking at uses of ‘(i)na’ in everyday life, it seems that the word ‘-(i)na’ rarely ever exhibits this pure meaning. There is more often an “free choice” interpretation which is similar to conjunction than a Boolean disjunction one. The disjunction ‘-(i)na’ in Korean is morphologically divided into a parallel construction ‘A(i)na B(i)na’ and a series construction ‘A(i)na B’. This paper examines the proof by examine previous research(such as Kim Suk Deuk (1995), Hur Woong (1995), Yoon Jae-Hak (2000), Fox (2006)) and then searching for the Sejong Corpus. First, the series construction will be distinguished from the parallel construction in surface representation, and then the syntactic environment will be considered. Unless a ‘logical operator’ intervenes in a series construction, the ‘ignorance(or indifference) inference’, the ‘quantity implicatures’ and the ‘arbitrary choice’ interpretations can appear. This search for logical operators which have yet to be studied in previous research may yield an explanation for the ‘-(i)na’ conjunction construction. Also through examining statistical data, operators found to be connected with conjunction particle ‘-(i)na’ will provide a basic framework for discourse analysis and computational linguistics.

Park Sun-Ja, Kim Mun-Gi. 2009. The Situation of and the Perspectives for Korean Semantics Education in the Universities of Korea. Korean Semantics 29. This study tries to examine the present and the future of Korean semantics education in the universities of Korea. For the examination of the present situation a questionnaire survey was carried out of teachers who are teaching Korean Semantics and its related subjects in the universities of Korea. The result was a description about Semantics education being performed in various linguistics departments, Korean linguistics departments and Korean language education departments of Korea. For the future perspectives, on the other hand, this study tries to make use of the description for suggesting possible directions for future expansion of Semantics education. Many teachers offered lots of valuable and sincere information and opinions which have the significances of inspection and readjustment. Those information were reflected and organized by a brief form of curriculum, bringing together all teaching materials and contents.