´ëÇѾð¾îÇÐȸ ÀüÀÚÀú³Î

´ëÇѾð¾îÇÐȸ

27±Ç 4È£ (2019³â 12¿ù)

Çѱ¹¾î ¼±¾î¸» ¾î¹Ì ¡®-½Ã-¡®ÀÇ »ç¹° ³ôÀÓ Çö»ó°ú °ø¼Õ Àü·«Àû »ç¿ë

ÃÖ¼ºÈ­

Pages : 37-51

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24303/lakdoi.2019.27.4.37

PDFº¸±â

¸®½ºÆ®

Abstract

Choi, Sunghwa. (2019). The inanimate subject honorification of the pre-final ending '-si-' and its strategic usage related to the politeness theory. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 27(4), 37-51. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the acceptability of the emerging phenomenon of the Korean pre-final ending '-si-', in which '-si-' seemingly respects inanimate subjects, with the experimental method widely used in the areas of experimental syntax. In experiment 1, participants rated the acceptability of various sentences, including inanimate subject sentences with or without the honorific marker '-si-'. Results in experiment 1 showed violation effect on the use of '-si-' in sentences with inanimate subjects comparing to human, respectable subjects. This result suggests the possibility that Korean speakers have not accepted this new usage of '-si-' as grammatical. We also tested the hypothesis that the inanimate subject honorific '-si-' is used for pragmatic reasons, specifically, face-saving motives in Brown and Levinson's politeness theory. In experiment 2, the acceptability of the use of '-si-' in inanimate subject sentences in face-threatening contexts is tested. The findings of this experiment show that the ungrammatical usage of the ending '-si-' is likely to be a strategic usage to preserve the face between conversation participants.

Keywords

# ¼±¾î¸» ¾î¹Ì ¡®-½Ã-¡¯(pre-final ending ¡®-si-¡¯) # »ç¹° ÁÖü ³ôÀÓ(inanimate subject honorification) # ûÀÚ ³ôÀÓ(hearer honorification) # ¼ö¿ë¼º ÆÇ´Ü(acceptability judgement) # °ÅÀý È­Çà(refusal speech act) # ü¸é À§Çù ÇàÀ§(face threatening act) # °ø¼Õ¼º(politeness)

References

  • ±èÀºÇý. (2016). Çѱ¹¾î ¼±¾î¸» ¾î¹Ì '-½Ã-'ÀÇ »ç¹° Á¸´ë ±â´É. »çȸ¾ð¾îÇÐ, 24(1), 91-113.
  • ¸ñÁ¤¼ö. (2013). ¼±¾î¸»¾î¹Ì '-½Ã-'ÀÇ ±â´É°ú ÁÖ¾î Á¸´ë. ±¹¾îÇÐ, 67, 63-105.
  • ¹ÎÁöÇý. (2014). '-½Ã-'ÀÇ È®´ë »ç¿ë ¾ç»ó¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹®¹ý ±³À°Àû ¿¬±¸. ¼®»çÇÐÀ§ ³í¹®, ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ±³À°´ëÇпø.
  • ¹Ú¼®ÁØ. (2002). Çö´ë±¹¾î ¼±¾î¸»¾î¹Ì '-½Ã-'¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿¬±¸. ¹Ú»çÇÐÀ§ ³í¹®, ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø.
  • ¹Ú¼®ÁØ. (2004). ¼±¾î¸»¾î¹Ì "-½Ã-"ÀÇ ¹®¹ý¿ÜÀû ¿ë¹ý¿¡ °üÇÏ¿©. ÇѸ»¿¬±¸, 14, 201-220.
  • ¹é¼ö¿¬. (2017). Çѱ¹¾î ÁÖüÁ¸´ë ¼±¾î¸»¾î¹Ì '-½Ã-'ÀÇ °ø¼Õ Àü·«°ú ±× À¯¿ëÀû È®Àå: ÆǸŠ´ãÈ­ ºÐ¼®À» Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î. ¼®»çÇÐÀ§ ³í¹®, ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø.
  • À̵οø. (2014). ¿µ¾îÀÇ Ã»ÀÚÁ¸ÄªÀ» ÅëÇØ º» »ç¹°ÁÖüÁ¸Äª. Àι®°úÇבּ¸, 42, 201-223.
  • ÀÌ·¡È£. (2012). ¼±¾î¸» ¾î¹Ì '-½Ã-'ÀÇ Ã»ÀÚ Á¸´ë ±â´É¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °íÂû. ¾ð¾îÇבּ¸, 23, 147-166.
  • ÀÌ»ó±Ù. (2017). ½ÇÇèÅë»ç·ÐÀÇ Çü½ÄÀû ¿¬±¸¹æ¹ý¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °íÂû. »ý¼º¹®¹ý¿¬±¸, 27(2), 395-429.
  • À̼ö¿¬. (2012). ¼­ºñ½º¾÷ Á¾»çÀÚµéÀÇ ¾ð¾î »ç¿ë ¾ç»ó. ¾î¹®¿¬±¸, 71, 79-97.
  • À̼÷ÀÇ. (2015). ³ôÀÓ ¼±¾î¸» ¾î¹Ì '-½Ã-'¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿©. Çѱ¹¾îÇÐ, 66, 215-244.
  • ÀÌÁ¤º¹. (1996). ±¹¾î °æ¾î¹ýÀÇ ¸» ´Ü°è º¯µ¿ Çö»ó. »çȸ¾ð¾îÇÐ, 4(1), 51-81.
  • ÀÌÁ¤º¹. (2006). ±¹¾î °æ¾î¹ý¿¡ ´ëÇÑ »çȸ¾ð¾îÇÐÀû Á¢±Ù. ±¹¾îÇÐ, 47, 407-448.
  • ÀÌÁ¤º¹. (2010). »óȲ ÁÖü ³ôÀÓ "-½Ã-"ÀÇ È®»ê°ú ¹è°æ. ¾ð¾î°úÇבּ¸, 55, 217-246.
  • ÀÌâ´ö. (2013). Çö´ë ±¹¾î ºñÀÎĪ Á¸´ë Çö»ó°ú ±× ±³À°Àû ´ëÀÀ ¹æ¾È¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿©. Çѱ¹Ãʵ¾î±³À°, 53, 275-299.
  • ÀÓÈ«ºó. (1985). {-½Ã-}¿Í °æÇèÁÖ »óÁ¤ÀÇ ½ÃÁ¡. ±¹¾îÇÐ, 14, 287-336.
  • Á¶¿ëÁØ. (2015). Çѱ¹¾î ½ÇÇèÅë»ç·ÐÀÇ ¸ð»ö. ¹Ú»çÇÐÀ§ ³í¹®, °Ç±¹´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø.
  • È«Á¾¼±, °û¼÷¿µ, ±Ç¿ë¹®, ¹®Çý½É, ÀÌÀºÈñ. (2009). ±¹¾î ³ôÀÓ¹ý Ç¥ÇöÀÇ ¹ß´Þ: ±¹¾î ¹®¹ýÀÇ Å½±¸ 2. ¼­¿ï: ¹Ú¹®»ç.
  • Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32-68.
  • Bernardy, J.-P., Lappin, S., & Lau, J. H. (2018). The influence of context on sentence acceptability judgements. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), 456-461
  • Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
  • Nagata, H. (1988). The relativity of linguistic intuition: The effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17(1), 1-17.
  • Schütze, C. T., & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgment data. In D. Sharma & R. J. Podesva (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 27-50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schütze, C. T. (2016). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  • Sprouse, J. (2007). A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.