대한언어학회 전자저널

Song, Kyung-An & Lee, Eun-Ha. (2020). Some issues of the Korean case considered from a typological perspective. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 28(2), 15-28. This paper examines some issues of the case description of Korean in a typological perspective. As a base of the discussion we explore the origin of the term case in the European tradition and compare this with the terms of Korean grammar. The term case originated from the Greek word ptosis which means fall, a spatial concept. In Korean grammar several terms were proposed. But they are all functionally defined, rather than spatially. In the European tradition the case was restricted to nominal functions which are marked by the inflectional forms. But this definition cannot be applied to Korean in which the nouns are not inflected. We need a broader definition of case. The European cases might be classified as inflectional case thereby. In Korean cases are marked by the postpositions and there are so many postpositions with diverse functions that it is not easy to specify the exact number and kinds of cases. Depending on grammarians the number of cases in Korean varies from two to twenty four. This paper suggests that we do not need to restrict the number of cases in Korean. Finally we examine three individual cases of Korean grammar and the results suggest as follows. Beside the postposition -i/-ga, the topic marker -eun/-neun should be counted as a nominative marker. The adverbial case is not an appropriate categorization of case. The cases which are included in this category should be counted as separate ones. The predicative case marker -ida corresponds to the copula in language typology, and it cannot be considered as a case marker.

# 격의 정의(definition of case) # 굴절격(inflectional case) # 무격 언어(caseless language) # 부사격(adverbial case) # 서술격(predicative case) # 한국어의 격(Korean case)

• 국립국어원. (2005). 외국인을 위한 한국어문법 1. 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스.
• 김규식. (1908). 대한문법. 油印本. 김민수･하동호･고영근(편). (1977). 역대한국문법대계 1-14. 서울: 탑출판사.
• 김민수. (1960). 국어문법론연구. 서울: 통문관.
• 김의수. (2002). 형식동사 ‘이다’의 문법. 어학연구, 38(3), 879-905.
• 김희상. (1911). 조선어전. 경성: 보급서관.
• 남궁억. (1913). 조선문법. 필사본. 김민수･하동호･고영근(편). (1977). 역대한국문법대계 1-24. 서울: 탑출판사.
• 남기심･고영근. (2014). 표준국어문법론. 서울: 박이정.
• 목정수. (1998). 기능동사 ‘이다’ 구성의 쟁점. 언어학, 22, 245-290.
• 박상준. (1932). 개정철자준거 조선어법. 평양: 동명서관.
• 박선옥·양경모. (2008). 일본어의 격. 투고자·이기갑 외. 언어유형론 3 (pp. 65-74). 서울: 월인.
• 박승빈. (1935). 조선어학. 경성: 조선어학연구회.
• 박종우. (1946). 한글의 문법과 실제. 부산: 중성사출판부.
• 송경안. (2008). 격의 유형론. 투고자･이기갑 외. 언어유형론 3 (pp. 9-53). 서울: 월인.
• 송경안. (2019). 언어의 유형과 한국어 그리고 영어. 서울: 역락.
• 송경안 외 5인. (2018). 언어의 이해. (개정판). 신아사: 서울.
• 송경안·오윤자. (2005). 격에 대한 유형론적 접근. 언어학, 41, 127-158.
• 시정곤. (2005). “이다" 구문과 통사적 접사설을 다시 논의함. 한국어학, 28, 55-80.
• 양정석. (2001). ‘이다’의 문법범주와 의미. 국어학, 37(1), 337-366.
• 우순조. (2006). 활용 개념과 소위 '이다'와 관련된 오해들. 언어학, 44, 79-121.
• 유길준. (1904). 조선문전. 필사본. 김민수･하동호･고영근(편). (1977). 역대한국문법대계 1-1. 서울: 탑출판사.
• 이광정. (1999). 전통문법에서의 격 연구. 한국어학회(편). 국어의 격과 조사 (pp. 9-48). 서울: 월인.
• 이숭녕. (1956). 중등국어문법. 서울: 을지문화사.
• 이필수. (1923). 정음문전. 경성: 조선정음부활회.
• 이환묵. (1999). 영어전통문법론. 서울: 아르케.
• 이희승. (1949). 초급국어문법. 서울: 박문사.
• 정렬모. (1946). 신편고등국어문법. 서울: 한글문화사.
• 정인승. (1956). 표준 고등말본. 서울: 신구문화사.
• 최태호. (1957). 중학말본. 서울: 사조사.
• 최현배. (1937). 우리말본. 경성: 연희전문대학교 출판부.
• 한국국어교육연구회 (편). (1964a). 교사용 중학국어문법. 서울: 향문사.
• 한국국어교육연구회 (편). (1964b). 교사용 고등국어문법. 서울: 향문사.
• 홍기문. (1927). 조선문법요령. 김민수･하동호･고영근(편). (1977). 역대한국문법대계 1-38. 서울: 탑출판사.
• Andrew, A. (2007). The major functions of the noun phrase. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 132-223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Barwick, K. (1933). Recensione a Sittig (1931). Gnomon, IX, 587-594. (재인용)
• Blake, B. (1992). The case hierarchy. La Trobe University Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 1-6.
• Blake, B. (1994). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Blake, B. (2009). History of the research on case. In M. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 13-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Comrie, B. (1978). Ergativity. In W. P. Lehmann (Ed.), Syntatic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language (pp. 329-394). Sussex: The Harvester Press.
• Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic linguistic theory. vol. 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hiersche, R. (1956). Entstehung und Entwicklung des Terminus πτÒσις "Fall“. In R. Hiersche, E. Ising & G. Ginschel (Eds.), Aus der Arbeit an einem historischen Wörterbuch der sprachwissenschaftlichen Terminologie (pp. 5-19). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
• König, C. (2008). Case in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Malchukov, A., & Spencer, A. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pinborg, J. (1975). Classical antiquity: Greece. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Historiography of linguistics. Current trends in linguistics 13 (pp. 69-126). The Hague: Mouton.
• Primus, B. (1999). Case and thematic roles. Max Niemeyer Verlag.
• Primus, B. (2011). Case-marking typology. In J.-J. Song (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology (pp. 303-321). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pustet, R. (2003). Copulas: Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Schachter, P. (2007). Parts of speech system. In T. Shopen (Ed), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 1-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sittig, E. (1931). Das Alter der Anordnung unserer Kasus und der Ursprung ihrer Bezeichnung als 'Fälle'. Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 13. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
• Song, J.-J. (2001). Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. London: Longman.
• Wackernagel, J. (1926). Vorlesungen über Syntax. Erste Reihe. Basel: Birkhäuser.