연어의 일상적인 의미에는 단어와 단어의 습관적인 이어짐을 가리키는 의미가 있다. 연어를 자유 결합과 같은 것으로 보는 견해는 이러한 쓰임에 기초한 것이다. 그러나 연어 관계는 기본적으로 일정한 문법적 구성에 나타나는 두 어휘소 사이의 어휘적인 선택 관계이다. 연어 관계는 두 어휘소 사이의 문제이므로, 문법적인 요소에 크게 영향을 받지 않는다. 조사의 개재가 장애 요인이 되지 않을 뿐 아니라, 어순바꿈으로 두 어휘소 사이의 거리가 멀어져도 이상이 없고, 공범주가 해석에 의하여 연어핵과 동지표되는 구성에서도 연어 관계는 성립한다. 연어 관계는 어휘소를 선택하는 관계이므로, 의미 선택과 구별된다. 연어 구성에서 핵심이 되는 요소가 연어핵이고 딸린 요소가 연어변이다.
연어 판별이나 관용 표현과의 구별에서 핵심이 되는 것은 연어핵의 의미이다. 연어핵이 비전의적인 기본 의미를 유지하고 있느냐 하는 것이 핵심이다. 연어핵이 전의적 의미를 강하게 가질수록 관용 표현에 가까워진다. 연어핵은 연어변과 함께 하나의 어휘 단위를 이루어 독립적인 단위와 같이 행동하는 일이 많다. 두 어휘가 합하여 독립적인 논항을 요구하기도 하고, 피동이나 사동에서 다른 양상을 보이기도 하고, 연어핵이 대명사화 등에서 이상을 보이기도 한다.
준-연어로서 문법적 연어를 설정하기도 하였는데, 그것은 문법적으로 잘 설명되지 않는 구성을 아우르는 이름이다.
연어의 일상적인 의미에는 단어와 단어의 습관적인 이어짐을 가리키는 의미가 있다. 연어를 자유 결합과 같은 것으로 보는 견해는 이러한 쓰임에 기초한 것이다. 그러나 연어 관계는 기본적으로 일정한 문법적 구성에 나타나는 두 어휘소 사이의 어휘적인 선택 관계이다. 연어 관계는 두 어휘소 사이의 문제이므로, 문법적인 요소에 크게 영향을 받지 않는다. 조사의 개재가 장애 요인이 되지 않을 뿐 아니라, 어순바꿈으로 두 어휘소 사이의 거리가 멀어져도 이상이 없고, 공범주가 해석에 의하여 연어핵과 동지표되는 구성에서도 연어 관계는 성립한다. 연어 관계는 어휘소를 선택하는 관계이므로, 의미 선택과 구별된다. 연어 구성에서 핵심이 되는 요소가 연어핵이고 딸린 요소가 연어변이다.
연어 판별이나 관용 표현과의 구별에서 핵심이 되는 것은 연어핵의 의미이다. 연어핵이 비전의적인 기본 의미를 유지하고 있느냐 하는 것이 핵심이다. 연어핵이 전의적 의미를 강하게 가질수록 관용 표현에 가까워진다. 연어핵은 연어변과 함께 하나의 어휘 단위를 이루어 독립적인 단위와 같이 행동하는 일이 많다. 두 어휘가 합하여 독립적인 논항을 요구하기도 하고, 피동이나 사동에서 다른 양상을 보이기도 하고, 연어핵이 대명사화 등에서 이상을 보이기도 한다.
준-연어로서 문법적 연어를 설정하기도 하였는데, 그것은 문법적으로 잘 설명되지 않는 구성을 아우르는 이름이다.
This paper aims to make it clear the concept of the category of collocation in Korean and to investigate the syntax and semantics of Korean collocations. To Korean linguists, the concept of collocation is not unfamiliar; there have already been many introductory overviews and comments on the nature ...
This paper aims to make it clear the concept of the category of collocation in Korean and to investigate the syntax and semantics of Korean collocations. To Korean linguists, the concept of collocation is not unfamiliar; there have already been many introductory overviews and comments on the nature and range of collocations. However, understanding the nature of collocation seems to be in the state of fluctuation, even in the specialists" comments. Free combination of words or high frequency relation in habitual combination of words have often been regarded as collocation. Cf. Cruse(1986) and Sinclair(1991). A collocational relation holds between two lexemes L1 and L2 in the case that the choice of Ll for the expression of a given meaning is contingent on L2, to which the meaning is applied(cf. Mel"chuk 1995 and Wanner 1996). Here, we should emphasize the nature of lexical selection of collocation and the contingent dependency between two lexemes co-occurring in grammatical constructions. A lexeme selecting the other lexeme in a collocational relation is called "collocational head (=CH, usually called base, keyword, or node)", whereas a lexeme selected by the CH is called "collocational periphery (=CP, usually called collocate)", As long as the two lexemes occur in an appropriate construction, their relation is not affected by grammatical elements. Case markers and particles cannot be inhibitors. In scrambling, even when the two lexemes are far apart in a clause, their collocational relation still holds. An empty category may play a role as CH, so long as it is coindexed with the substantial NP containing CH. In the decision of CH, the effectiveness of grammatical description concerning the selectional relation should be considered. For example, in "adverb+verb" -type collocations such as ajang-ajang geotda "walk toddlingly", it is quite obvious that the adverb selects the verb. However, the verb is CH, since the grammatical description(the lexical description for grammar, more precisely) of the verb seldom contains the information of co-occurring adverb. If the grammatical description of a verb contains the adverbial information as collocational information, the grammar would work more adequately. A sharp distinction is made between the grammatical selection and the collocational selection. In such an example as nun-eul gamda "close eyes", gamda "close" seems to select nun "eye", mainly due to the exclusive use of gamda to eyes. Syntactically, however, the verb gamda selects NP containing nun "eye", not N, the eye. Collocationally, the lexeme of the noun nun "eye" selects the lexeme of the verb gamda. What is crucial in identifying the collocation and distinguishing collocations from idioms is the meaning of CH. The intrinsic nature of CH is to retain the basic and non-transferred meaning of the lexeme. The more transferred meaning the CH has, the more idiom-like the construction is. It could be said that collocation, as a syntactic unit, behaves like a lexical unit, not so tightly bound. A collocational unit occasionally demands an independent case frame and theta roles. In principle, collocation is not a syntactic phenomenon. The postulation of the grammatical collocation, as attested in BBI, may not have a general consensus. Some constructions not captured in grammar effectively, however, could be set up as pseudo-collocation. For example, in the construction of -neun baram-e "by the force of, as a result of", the ending -neun can be analyzed as being selected by the bound noun baram, which can be captured in the lexicon of baram. On the contrary, the selection of the bound noun baram cannot be captured in the lexicon of the particle -e. In this case, the bound noun baram plus particle -e, i.e. baram-e, not -neun baram-e as a whole unit, could be trea..
This paper aims to make it clear the concept of the category of collocation in Korean and to investigate the syntax and semantics of Korean collocations. To Korean linguists, the concept of collocation is not unfamiliar; there have already been many introductory overviews and comments on the nature and range of collocations. However, understanding the nature of collocation seems to be in the state of fluctuation, even in the specialists" comments. Free combination of words or high frequency relation in habitual combination of words have often been regarded as collocation. Cf. Cruse(1986) and Sinclair(1991). A collocational relation holds between two lexemes L1 and L2 in the case that the choice of Ll for the expression of a given meaning is contingent on L2, to which the meaning is applied(cf. Mel"chuk 1995 and Wanner 1996). Here, we should emphasize the nature of lexical selection of collocation and the contingent dependency between two lexemes co-occurring in grammatical constructions. A lexeme selecting the other lexeme in a collocational relation is called "collocational head (=CH, usually called base, keyword, or node)", whereas a lexeme selected by the CH is called "collocational periphery (=CP, usually called collocate)", As long as the two lexemes occur in an appropriate construction, their relation is not affected by grammatical elements. Case markers and particles cannot be inhibitors. In scrambling, even when the two lexemes are far apart in a clause, their collocational relation still holds. An empty category may play a role as CH, so long as it is coindexed with the substantial NP containing CH. In the decision of CH, the effectiveness of grammatical description concerning the selectional relation should be considered. For example, in "adverb+verb" -type collocations such as ajang-ajang geotda "walk toddlingly", it is quite obvious that the adverb selects the verb. However, the verb is CH, since the grammatical description(the lexical description for grammar, more precisely) of the verb seldom contains the information of co-occurring adverb. If the grammatical description of a verb contains the adverbial information as collocational information, the grammar would work more adequately. A sharp distinction is made between the grammatical selection and the collocational selection. In such an example as nun-eul gamda "close eyes", gamda "close" seems to select nun "eye", mainly due to the exclusive use of gamda to eyes. Syntactically, however, the verb gamda selects NP containing nun "eye", not N, the eye. Collocationally, the lexeme of the noun nun "eye" selects the lexeme of the verb gamda. What is crucial in identifying the collocation and distinguishing collocations from idioms is the meaning of CH. The intrinsic nature of CH is to retain the basic and non-transferred meaning of the lexeme. The more transferred meaning the CH has, the more idiom-like the construction is. It could be said that collocation, as a syntactic unit, behaves like a lexical unit, not so tightly bound. A collocational unit occasionally demands an independent case frame and theta roles. In principle, collocation is not a syntactic phenomenon. The postulation of the grammatical collocation, as attested in BBI, may not have a general consensus. Some constructions not captured in grammar effectively, however, could be set up as pseudo-collocation. For example, in the construction of -neun baram-e "by the force of, as a result of", the ending -neun can be analyzed as being selected by the bound noun baram, which can be captured in the lexicon of baram. On the contrary, the selection of the bound noun baram cannot be captured in the lexicon of the particle -e. In this case, the bound noun baram plus particle -e, i.e. baram-e, not -neun baram-e as a whole unit, could be trea..
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.