대한언어학회 전자저널

Choi, Youngju. (2019). Meaning relatedness of SPATIAL PROXIMITY with COMPARISON, CONTRAST, and CONCESSIVE: Focusing on Korean verb tayta. The Linguisitic Association of Korea Journal, 27(1), 103-121. Based on cognitive semantics, Izutsu and Izutsu (2011) provide an explanation of how English connectives such as while and whereas extend their meanings to CONTRAST and CONCESSIVE from their original meaning TEMPORAL/SPATIAL OVERLAP. In case of while, the two propositions connected by while are arranged side by side within the viewer’s viewing frame. The arrangement creates spatial proximity between the two propositions, making it easy to compare and contrast them, leading to the meaning CONTRAST for while. The meaning CONCESSIVE is developed when the co-occurrence of the events denoted by the two propositions is not compatible with one of the viewer’s assumptions. These explanations raise the question as to whether this type of meaning development is restricted to connectives or if it can be extended to other categories. In answering the question, the paper examines Korean verb tayta, which literally means SPATIAL CONTACT, and reveals that the meaning development is similarly observed. The cross-categorical finding of the paper strengthens the linguistic motivation towards meaning development from spatial proximity to comparison, contrast, and concessive.

# cognitive semantics # spatial proximity # contrastive meaning # concessive meaning # linguistic motivation

• Izutsu, M. N. (2005). Contrast, concessive, and corrective: A unifying analysis of opposition　relation in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sapporo: Hokkaido University.
• Izutsu, M. N. (2008). Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 646–675.
• Izutsu, M. N., & Izutsu, K. (2011). What motivates an inference?: The emergence of CONTRAST/CONCESSIVE from TEMPORAL/SPATIAL OVERLAP. In K-W. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 107-132). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge University Press.
• Panther, K-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2003a). Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In K.-U. Panther and L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 1-22). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Panther, K-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2003b). Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In K.-U. Panther and L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 127-148). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Radden, G., & Panther, K-U. (2004). Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden and K-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1-46). Walter de Gruyter.
• Traugott, E. C., & König, E. (1991). The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heines (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 1 (pp. 189-218). John Benjamins Publishing Company.