의사소통의 다면성과 복합지식

머리말

Reportative evidential in Korean / Nam-Kil Kim
1. Introduction
2. Reportatives
3. The difference between reportative evidentials and ordinary quotative sentences
4. Differences between ordinary quotative and ha-quotative sentences
5. Types of reportative evidential
6. Past reportative evidential
7. Conclusion

보조사 ‘은/는’의 연구 쟁점과 담화 구조와의 관련성 탐색 / 한송화
1. 문제의 제기
2. 보조사 ‘은/는’ 연구에서의 쟁점들
3. 보조사‘은/는’의 담화 기능에 대한 또 다른 해석: 전경 정보

The Speaker’s Choice of Using (l)ul in Informal Spoken Korean / Won Kyung Na
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Mythology
4. Analysis
5. Conclusion and Implications

담화 표지의 기능에 대한 고찰 / 강현화
1. 서론
2. 담화 표지에 대한 선행 연구
3. 구어 담화 표지
4. 마무리

언어 교육과 의사소통 능력 / 원미진
1. 들어가는 말
2. 언어 교육에서의 ‘의사소통’ - 목적 혹은 수단
3. 상호작용적 의사소통
4. 사회문화적 관점에서의 상호작용과 의사소통적 ‘대화’
5. 마무리

한국 신문에 나타난 다문화주의의 담론적 양상 / 김현강
1. 서론
2. 담론 자료
3. 이론적 배경
4. 사설에 나타난 다문화주의 담론의 양상
5. 맺음말차례 |

말뭉치언어학 관점에서 신문기사 범죄사건 명명 방식 분석 / 유희재?유성희? 김진웅
1. 서론
2. 자료 수집 절차와 연구 방법
3. 신문기사에 나타나는 범죄 사건명의 주석 결과
4. 범죄사건 명명 방식 분석
5. 결론

한일 양국어의 접미사 연구 / 윤영민
1. 들어가며
2. 연구 방법
3. [-적(的)/-てき(的)]의 조어적 특징
4. 나오며

Reportative evidential in Korean*
Nam-Kil Kim

Reportative evidential in Korean |
| 의사소통의 다면성과 복합지식

1. Introduction

The paper aims to investigate reportative evidential, which includes present and past evidentials, in Korean. For a long time, the category of evidential remained as one of the least known grammatical categories in linguistics. However, since publication of research on evidentials (Givon 1982; Bybee 1985; Chafe and Nichols 1986; Palmer 1986 & 2001; Willet 1988; Johanson & Utas 2000; Aikhenvald 2004) evidentiality has come to be recognized as a widespread and significant grammatical phenomenon. According to Aikhenvald(2004: 1), ‘In about a quarter of the world’s languages, every statement must specify the type of source on which it is based-for example, whether the speaker saw it, or heard it, or inferred it from indirect evidence, or learnt it from someone else.’
From the perspective of modality, evidentiality may belong to the domain of the epistemic modality; for instance, Frawley(1992: 407) views that ‘epistemic modality is a handy cover term for the way that language denotes and encodes the following concepts, among others: possibility, necessity, inference, belief, report, hearsay, conclusion, deduction, opinion, commitment, speculation, quotation, doubt, evidence, and certainty.’ The concepts cited by him such as inference, report, hearsay, conclusion, speculation, quotation, and evidence are crucially relevant to and meticulously dealt with in the study of evidentialty. No matter how evidentiality is treated in the analysis of its status with the grammatical categorization with respect to its relationship with modality in the grammar, it is obvious that evidentiality is the grammatical category indicating that its primary function or meaning is the expression of information source.
According to Willet(1988: 55), ‘evidentiality is the linguistic means of indicating how the speaker obtained the information on which s/he bases an assertion.’ Anderson(1986: 277) states that ‘evidentials are used (a) to specify factual claims and (b) to indicate the justification available to the person making the claim.’ He characterizes evidentials, in addition to circumstantial inference and hearsay, as in the following(Anderson 1986: 274-275):

(3a) Evidentials show the kind of justification for a factual claim which is available to the person making that claim, whether direct evidence plus observation (no inference is needed) evidence plus inference (evidence unspecified) reasoned expectation form logic and other facts and whether the evidence is auditory, or visual, etc.
(3b) Evidentials are not themselves the main predication of the clause, but are rather a specification added to a factual claim about something else.
(3c) Evidentials have the indication of evidence as in (a) as their primary meaning, not only as a pragmatic inference.
(3d) Morphologically, evidentials are inflections, clitics, or other free syntactic elements (not compounds or derivational forms).

In the typology of evidentiality, Willet(1988: 57) dichotomizes evidence into direct and indirect based on the source of the speaker’s information. Within the direct and indirect distinction, three general types of evidence are found: attested, reported, and inferring. Attested evidence is direct evidence, which is also called sensory evidence. Attested evidence includes visual, auditory and other sensory. The other two evidences, reported and inferring, belong to indirect evidence. According to Willet(1988: 57), ‘reported evidence may be specifically marked as second-hand or third hand (hearsay), or part of the oral literature (folklore); and inferring evidence may be specifically marked as involving either observable evidence (results) or a mental construct only (reasoning).’
Korean has a fairly decent evidential system which codes all three major evidences of attested, inferring, and reported. Attested evidence is marked by the sensory eivdential te, inferring evidence by the inferential keyss (and the periphrastic form ul kesi) and reported evidence by the hearsay reportative tan (or tay and tap). Among these evidentials, the paper will concentrate on explication of reportative evidential.

2. Reportatives

The evidential category reportative has been called differently by linguists: for instance, it is commonly termed reported(Willet 1988), hearsay(Chafe 1986) or quotative(Palmer 1986). In this paper the term ‘reportative’ will be used, following Anderson(1986).
According to Willet(p. 96), reportative (or reported evidence) expresses that ‘the speaker claims to know of the situation described via verbal means, but may not specify whether it is hearsay (i.e. second-hand or third hand), or is conveyed through folklore.’ He further distinguishes reported evidence into the following three types:

1. Second?hand evidence: the speaker claims to have heard of the situation described from someone who was a direct witness.
2. Third-hand evidence: the speaker claims to have heard about the situation described, but not from a direct witness.
3. Evidence from folklore: the speaker claims that the situation described is part of established oral history.

Whereas Willet distinguishes three types of reported evidence as seen in the above, Anderson(1986: 289) distinguishes four kinds of reportatives: hearsay, general reputation, myth and history, and quotative. According to Anderson (op. cit.), the first three reportatives are true evidentials, but the last one is marginally an evidential.
In Korean, four types of quotative sentences can be distinguished by the syntactic properties of the main subject, the complementizer, types of predicates, and tense. The first type is the sentence, which involves an indirect quotation as its complement and whose main predicate is a saying verb as in the following.

(1) John-i cwungtong-eyse cencayng-i ilena-ss-ta-ko malha-n-ta.
NOM Middle East-in war-NOM occur-PAST-IA-COMP say-PRES-IA.
‘John says that the war broke out in the Middle East.’

Example (1) involves the quotative complementizer ko ‘that’ and the saying verb malha ‘say’. Henceforth, these types of sentences will be called ‘ordinary quotative sentences’.
The second type of quotative sentences is the same as the first type except for the difference in the predicate as shown in (2).

(2) John-i cwungtong-eyse cencayng-i ilena-ss-ta-ko ha-n-ta. do
‘John says that the war broke out in the Middle East.’

In (2) the main predicate is the proverb ha ‘do’, which is different from the saying verb in (1). These types of sentences will be called ‘ha-quotative sentences’.
The third type of quotative sentences is quite different from the first type but similar to the second type in a couple of respects as shown in the following:

(3) Cwungtong eyse cencayng i ilena-ss-ta ko ha-n-ta. ‘They say that the war broke out in the Middle East.’

Example (3) differs from (1) with respect to the absence or presence of the main subject and the difference of the predicate. The only difference between (3) and (2) is the absence or presence of the main subject. This type of sentences will be called ‘present reportative evidential’.
The fourth type of quotative sentences is the following:

(4) Cwungtong-eyse cencayng-i ilena-ss-ta-ko ha-te-la.do-SENS-A
‘They said (or I heard) that the war broke out in the Middle East.’

Example (4) differs from (3) in that the sensory evidential marker te is added after the proverb ha and the sensory assertive ending la replaced the indicative assertive ending ta. While (3) is the present reportative evidential sentence, (4) is the past reportative evidential sentence. Thus, the fourth type of sentences will be called ‘past reportative evidential’.
This paper aims to demonstrate three things; the first one is to show that (3) differs from (1) and (2) with respect to evidentiality. Six grammatical facts will be given to show the difference between ordinary quotative sentences and quotative evidenttial. The second aim is to show that structurally, there are three kinds of reportative or quotative sentences in Korean, which can be subcategorized into two types of, ordinay quotative and reportative evidential (or hearsay). The third aim is to demonstrate that past reportative is structurally different from present reportative in marking by utilizing the sensory evidential form te as shown in (4).

3. The difference between reportative evidentials and ordinary quotative sentences

In order to discuss the difference between reportative evidentials and ordinary quotative sentences, observe the following examples, which contain (1), (2) and (3):

(5) a. John-i cwungtong-eyse cencayng-i ilena-ss-ta-ko malha-n-ta.
NOM Middle East-in war-NOM occur-PAST-IA-COMP say-PRES-IA.
‘John says (or is saying) that the war broke out in the Middle East.’
b. John-i cwungtong-eyse cencayng-i ilena-ss-ta-ko ha-n-ta.
‘John says (or is saying) that the war broke out in the Middle East.’
c. Cwungtong-eyse cencayng-i ilena-ss-ta-ko ha-n-ta.
‘They say (or I heard) that the war broke out in the Middle East.’

The difference between (5a) and (5b) is the main predicate, but the meanings of both sentences are the same as the glosses show. Thus, we may take a view that the verb ha in (5b) is derived from the saying verb malha by deleting the noun mal ‘saying’.
The structural difference between (5c) on the one hand and (5a) and (5b) on the other is the absence or the presence of the main subject. However, the presence or the absence of the main subject brings about the major difference in the interpretation of (5b) and (5c); whereas (5b) is interpreted as belonging to an ordinary quotative sentence, (5c) as a reportative evidential sentence.
For quotative or reportative sentences to be qualified as evidential, they must indicate ‘that a statement has been heard from someone else and is not made on the speaker’s own authority’ (Whistler 1986: 64). Since the two statements expressed by (5a) and (5b) are made on the speaker’s own authority, they are ordinary quotative sentences. In other words, the speaker utters (5a) and (5b) as factual statements by observing the real event of John’s saying. In contrast to this, (5c) is reportative evidential, since it is a statement attained by verbal means from someone else; i.e. the speaker merely repeats (5c) as what he heard.
In this section, we will see in what respects reportative evidential is different from ordinary quotative sentences. Six grammatical facts will be given to demonstrate the difference. They are 1) the meaning of the verb ha, 2) the main subject, 3) the deletion of the quotative marker ko, 4) the occurrence or non-occurrence of tense, aspect, and modal, 5) the occurrence or non-occurrence of adverbials, and 6) the presence or absence of the indirect object.

2.1. The meaning of the verb ha

In the above, it was already mentioned that the verb ha in (5a) may have been derived from the saying verb malha ‘say’ in (5b) by a deletion of the noun mal ‘saying’. (5) is repeated below as (6) for the sake of presentation:

(6) a. John-i cwungtong-eyse cencayng-i ilna-ss-ta-ko malha-n-ta.
‘John says that the war broke out in the Middle East.’
b. John-i cwungton-eyse cencayng-i ilena-ss-ta-ko ha-n-ta.
‘John says that the war broke out in the Middle East.’
c. Cuwngtong eyse cencayng i ilna-ss-ta ko ha-n-ta.
‘They say that the war broke out in the Middle East.’

Now compare (6b) with (6c). (6c) is also interpreted as meaning ‘say’. However, a close examination of the meaning of ha in (6b) and (6c) reveals the difference of meaning; i.e. the former indicates that the specific person ‘John’ says a statement expressed in the quotative complement, whereas the latter indicates that an unspecified person says so. In other words, (6c) expresses a hearsay meaning of ‘they say’ or ‘I hear’, but (6b) is absent of this meaning.
It is noted by linguists (for instance, Gordon 1986: 76; Anderson 1986: 280; Willet 1988: 61) that reportative evidentials historically evolved from saying verbs. Thus, it is likely to claim that in Korean the verb ha also came from the independent saying verb malha ‘say’. It may be so, but at least, the verb ha in (6c) cannot be replaced by the saying verb malha ‘say’ in the sense of expressing hearsay as in (7):

(7) ??Cwungtong eyse cencayng i ilena-ss-ta ko malha-n-ta.
‘*says that the war broke out in the Middle East.’

When someone heard (7), his immediate reaction to the statement in (7) would be ‘Who?’ as in (8a); i.e., ‘who is saying that?’ or ;who says so?’ as in (8b).

(8) a. Nwu-ka?
who-NOM
‘Who?’
b. Nwu-ka kulehkey malhay? (or Nwu-ka kulay?)
who-NOM so say who-NOM so say
‘Who says so?’

Example (7) is very unlikely to be used in expressing hearsay, but only to express an ordinary quotative sentence. The oddness of (7) in acceptability is due to the absence of the main subject as will be clear in the next section.

2.2. The main subject

The prominent feature typically found in reportative evidential is that the main subject is absent or unspecified (Gordon 1986: 76). Hence, as seen in (6), (6c) is perfectly acceptable as hearsay evidential. However, in ordinary quotative sentences the presence of the main subject is obligatory as shown in the comparison of (6a) and (7).
In quotative complementation, it is common that the presence of the main subject is almost obligatory, but the lack of the subject in embedded quotative complement clauses is allowable by obeying syntactic constraints such as the identical-subject condition. Observe the following quotative sentences:

(9) a. John-i totwuk-ul cap-ass-ta-ko malha-n-ta.
NOM thief-ACC catch-PAST-IA-COMP say-PRES-IA
‘John says that he caught a thief.’
b. John-i totwuk-ul cap-ass-ta-ko ha-n-ta.
‘John says that he caught a thief.’
‘They say that John caught a thief.’

In (9a), which contains the saying verb malha, the subject, John, is the main subject and the subject in the embedded sentence is deleted by the identical subject condition. However, (9b), which contains the verb ha, is ambiguous as indicated by the gloss; (9b) is interpreted either as an ordinary quotative or a reportative evidential. The ambiguity is due to the interpretation of the subject. If the subject is interpreted