´ëÇѾð¾îÇÐȸ ÀüÀÚÀú³Î

´ëÇѾð¾îÇÐȸ

31±Ç 4È£ (2023³â 12¿ù)

´ëÁ¶Àû °üÁ¡¿¡¼­ º» Çѱ¹ ¼ö¾îÀÇ ÀÌÁ¢ µîÀ§±¸¹®

ÀüÇý¿ø À̼±Çý Àå¼¼Àº °íÀΰæ À±º´Ãµ Á¶ÂüÈÆ ±èÁ¾º¹

Pages : 197-219

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24303/lakdoi.2023.31.4.197

PDFº¸±â

¸®½ºÆ®

Abstract

Jeon, Haewon; Lee, Seonhye; Jhang, Se-Eun; Koh, Inkyung; Yoon, Byeongcheon; Jo, Charmhun & Kim, Jong-Bok. (2023). Disjunctive coordination in Korean sign language from a comparative perspective. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 31(4), 197-219. Human language uniquely exhibits infinite generativity, a trait shared by both spoken and sign languages. However, their realization differs significantly. This study examines the linguistic parallels and contrasts between spoken and sign languages, particularly focusing on disjunctive coordination. While English utilizes consistent lexical items and sentence structures for disjunctive coordination, it can express alternative questions, polar questions, and three semantic interpretations: alternative question, exclusive disjunction, and inclusive disjunction. This multiplicity of interpretations from a single conjunction presents a linguistic conundrum. Our research delves into the distinct roles of manual signs and non-manual markers (NMMs) in Korean Sign Language (KSL) and American Sign Language (ASL), emphasizing their linguistic functionalities. In English, these interpretations are clarified through intonation, whereas in Korean, the usage of the disjunctive coordinator aids in disambiguation. For ASL, Davidson (2013) notes that disjunction can be conveyed solely through NMMs, designated as COORD-SHIFT and COORD-L. In KSL, the differential application of coordinate markers and NMMs plays a pivotal role in resolving ambiguity in disjunctive coordination. The paper culminates with a comprehensive table summarizing disjunction in Korean, English, KSL, and ASL, highlighting their respective functions. We also propose directions for future research in this field.

Keywords

# Çѱ¹ ¼ö¾î(Korean Sign Language) # ¼öÈ­¾ð¾î(sign languages) # ÀÌÁ¢ µîÀ§±¸¹®(disjunctive coordination) # ¼±ÅÃÀǹ®¹®(alternative questions) # ¹èŸÀû ÀÌÁ¢(exclusive disjunction) # Æ÷°ýÀû ÀÌÁ¢(inclusive disjunction) # ºñ¼öÁö Ç¥Áö(non-manual markers)

References

  • °íÀΰæ, À±º´Ãµ, ÀüÇý¿ø, À̼±Çý, ¹ÚÈ£¹Î, Àå¼¼Àº. (2023). ÄÚÆÛ½º ±â¹Ý Çѱ¹ ¼ö¾îÀÇ µîÀ§ ±¸¹® ¿¬±¸. Çѱ¹ ÄÚÆÛ½º ¾ð¾îÇÐȸ °¡À»Çмú´ëȸ ³í¹®Áý, ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³, pp. 100-118.
  • ¿ø¼º¿Á ¿Ü. (2020). Çѱ¹¼ö¾î ¹®¹ý ¿¬±¸. ±¹¸³±¹¾î¿ø
  • ÀÌÀÇÁ¾, ¹ÚÁøÈ£. (2023). ¼±ÅÃÀǹ®¹®°ú ÀÌÁ¢ÀÇ °ü°è¿¡ ´ëÇѾð¾îÀ¯Çü·ÐÀû °íÂû. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 48(3), 731-758.
  • ÀÌÁ¤¿Á. (2012). Çѱ¹ ¼ö¾îÀÇ º¹ÇÕ¹® ½ÇÇö Ư¼º ¿¬±¸. ´ë±¸´ëÇб³ ¹Ú»çÇÐÀ§³í¹®.
  • Aboh, E. O., Pfau, R., & Zeshan, U. (2005). When a wh-word is not a wh-word: The case of Indian Sign Language, in T. Bhattacharya, ed., The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2005, pp. 11-43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Aloni, M., & Van Rooij, R. (2002). The dynamics of questions and focus. In Proceedings of SALT 12, ed. B. Jackson. Cornell University, CLC Publications.
  • Bartels, C. (1999). The intonation of English statements and questions: a compositional interpretation. New York: Garland.
  • Beck, S., & Kim, S. S. (2006). Intervention effects in alternative questions. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 9, 165-208.
  • Biezma, M., & Rawlins, K. (2012). Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35(5), 3.
  • David, P. (1982). Paths and Categories, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
  • Davidson, K. (2013). 'And' or 'or': General use coordination in ASL. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, 4-1.
  • Emonds, J. (1976). A transformational approach to english syntax, academic press. New York.
  • Hamzah, N. J. (2011). A comparative analysis of alternative questions in English and Arabic. Journal of Al-Qadisiya University, 14(3), 23-4.
  • Han, C. H., & Romero, M. (2004). Disjunction, Focus, and Scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 35(2), 179-217.
  • Hartmann, K., Pfau, R., & Legeland, I. (2021). Asymmetry and contrast: Coordination in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1).
  • Keyser, S. J., & Postal, P. (1976). Beginning English Grammar. Harper & Row, New York.
  • Kuhn, N., & Wilbur, R. B. (2006). Interrogative structures in Croatian Sign Language: Polar and content questions. Sign Language & Linguistics, 9(1-2), 151-167.
  • Lakoff, G., & Stanley, P. (1966). Phrasal Conjunction and Symmetric Predicates, in D. A. Reibel and S. Shane (Eds.), Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
  • Larson, R. K. (1985). On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 3(2), 217-264.
  • Meertens, E. (2019). Prosody in disjunctive questions: Introducing class. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 25(1), 21.
  • Milković, M., & Radošević, T. (2021). Non-Manual Markers in Croatian Sign Language–a Look at the Current State. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 93, 137-159.
  • Perniss, P. M., Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (Eds.). (2008). Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure (Vol. 188). pp. 207-244, Walter de Gruyter.
  • Pfau, R. (2006). Visible prosody: spreading and stacking of non-manual markers in sign languages. In 25th West Coast Conf. on Formal Linguistics, Cascadilla Proceedings Project. USA: Seattle.
  • Pfau, R., & Quer, J. (2010). Nonmanuals: their grammatical and prosodic roles (p.381-402). na.
  • Pruitt, K., & Roelofsen, F. (2013). The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(4), 632-650.
  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
  • Roelofsen, F., & Van Gool, S. (2010). Disjunctive questions, intonation, and highlighting. In Logic, Language and Meaning: Selected Papers from the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. de Jager and K. Schulz, 384-394.
  • Romero, M., & Han, C. H. (2003). Focus, ellipsis and the semantics of alternattive questions. In Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, 291-307.
  • Rooth, M., & Partee, B. (1982). 'Conjunction, Type Ambiguity and Wide Scope Or', in D. Flickenger, M. Macken and N. Wiegand (eds.), Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Linguistics Dept., Stanford University.
  • Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. C. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge University Press.
  • Šarac Kuhn, N., & Wilbur, R. B. (2006). Interrogative structures in Croatian Sign Language: Polar and content questions, Sign Language & Linguistics, 9(1/2), 151-167.
  • Tang, G., & Lau, P. (2012). Coordination and subordination. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 340-365. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
  • Van Herreweghe, M., & Vermeerbergen, M. (2006). Interrogatives and Negatives in Flemish Sign Language. in: U. Zeshan, ed., Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages, pp. 225-256. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
  • Waters, D., & Sutton-Spence, R. (2005). Connectives in British Sign Language. In: Deaf Worlds, 21(3), 1-29.
  • Wilbur, R. B. (1991). Intonation and focus in American Sign Language. In ESCOL ¡®90: Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Yungkyoon No and Mark Libucha (eds.), 320-331. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
  • Wilbur, R. B. (1994a). Eyeblinks and ASL phrase structure. Sign Language Studies, 84, 221-240.
  • Wilbur, R. B., & Patschke, C. (1998). Body leans and marking contrast in ASL. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 275-303.
  • Zeshan, U. (2004). Interrogative constructions in sign languages – Crosslinguistic perspectives. Language, 80, 7-39.
  • Zorzi, G. (2018). Coordination and gapping in Catalan Sign Language (LSC) (Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra).