The purpose of this research is to set modality as a grammatical category in Korean and to examine it microscopically and macroscopically. To achieve this, I established the Korean modality through theoretical discussion, and described the meanings an... The purpose of this research is to set modality as a grammatical category in Korean and to examine it microscopically and macroscopically. To achieve this, I established the Korean modality through theoretical discussion, and described the meanings and pragmatic functions of the modality markers that make up the modality category. Based on this, mood, sentence type, and tense, which can be seen as contiguous categories to modality, were studied to see the relation these had with modality, and through this the position of modality as a grammatical category was identified. In Chapter 2, the theoretical discussion to establish the modality category and analyze the system and meanings of the modality markers were carried out. In this study, modality was defined as ‘the speaker’s attitude towards the factuality of the propositions and the actualization of an event’, and modality was seen as a grammatical category when this meaning of modality is realized through periphrastic construction and the pre-final endings which are situated between the main verb and the final endings. After establishing the modality category, modality was classified by propositional modality that covered epistemic modality and evidential modality, and event modality that covered deontic modality and dynamic modality, and the modality markers were selected. After the modality markers were confirmed, a few criterions were established in order to analyze the meanings of modality markers. In chapter 3, the meanings of the modality markers within the same type were compared and described. For the markers in which no differences appeared through analysis of meanings, the distribution of their usage among registers was investigated and they were checked to see if there was differentiated usage depending on medium, formality etc. This resulted in discovering that the modality markers of identical classification were developed through a functional paradigmatic relation with each other. Epistemic modality markers show separate characteristics from each other in terms of subjectivity, modality strength, evidences of judgement, assimilation of proposition, and 1stperson restriction. A difference between the contexts of usage was discovered in the few epistemic modality markers where differences of their meanings through the analysis of meanings could not be found. There is only ‘-teo-’ in evidential modality and therefore it does not need a comparison description. Therefore in this study the evidential modality meaning and indication of past cognition time of ‘-teo-’ were reconfirmed. Deontic modality markers can be divided according to the strength of the modality as deontic necessity markers and deontic possibility markers. There were no differences in the meanings of the deontic necessity markers and it could be confirmed that there are differentiations in context of usage. There was a difference in terms of subjectivity in the case of deontic possibility markers. Ability markers showed a differentiated characteristic depending on whether it displayed a physical ability or a mental ability. Intention markers were distinguished in terms of subjectivity and depending on individual markers there were cases where intention markers were shown or a difference in strength level appeared in the moment of speaking. Of the dynamic modality markers, the intention markers that were unable to be distinguished through meaning showed a difference in the context of usage. In chapter 4 the characteristics of combining modality markers and the meaning of the combination were investigated. Through the observation of the combination of modality markers, a few characteristics were discovered. First, modality markers were combined in the following order: dynamic modality-deontic modality-epistemic modality-evidential modality. Second, combinations of modality markers of the same type were limited and the other combinations of modality markers of other types were generally natural. Third, the principle of ‘one-commitment-per-clause’ can be applied to Korean modality marker combinations. Through these characteristics of combining modality markers, we can understand that modality markers follow an order and principle, and that modality markers in the same type have a relatively functional paradigmatic relation. In chapter 5, the pragmatic function of modality markers were examined. The propositional modality marker can weaken assertives, and event modality markers can change assertion to directives or commissives. For both epistemic modality markers and evidential modality markers, whether directly or indirectly, they carry the meaning that there is a lack of conviction in the truth value of a proposition, and therefore they weaken the assertives. At times, the speaker is convinced that the proposition is true, but even in these cases propositional modality markers are strategically used to lower face threat. Deontic modality markers are triggers of indirect directives when they express subjective modal meaning. The sentence with a deontic modality marker is thought to be more polite than an imperative sentence with an imperative ending. This is because Korean deontic modality markers are ambiguous expressions that can be interpreted as having both subjective meaning and object meaning. Intention modality markers can vary from assertives to commissives. Intention markers and ability markers in interrogative sentences can vary from questions to directives. Like this modality markers influence speech act indirectly. In chapter 6 the position of modality as a grammatical category within the relationship with contiguous categories was reconfirmed. Modality and mood are similar in the way that they both show the speaker’s attitude towards the proposition, but they are different in meaning, syntactic obligatoriness, and systemicity. Modality and sentence type are similar in the way that they are both related to speech acts, however they are different in the way that modality influences speech acts indirectly whereas sentence type influences directly. Modality and tense have differences in the fundamental attributes of each category and therefore no boundary problems arose in the establishment of the category. There were however a few modality markers indicating time and thus there can be a shared realm between tense and modality depending on how the tense is viewed. In chapter 7 the research is summarized and the remaining problems are laid out. 참고문헌 (Reference) |
