초록
This article analyzes grammatical forms of Mongolian and Korean which can describe past situations. Mongolian suffixes -laa, -jee and -v are past tense forms, but they have different evidential connotations: firsthand past -laa, non-firsthand past -jee and neutral past -v. Korean has two grammatical forms which are mainly employed for past situation description: -ess- and -te-. Korean -ess- is a past tense form but -te- is an evidential form. Korean -te- is a firsthand evidential (past sensory observation), indicating that the speaker has firsthand information about the situation and that the information was acquired before the speech time. Non-firsthand past -jee in Mongolian and firsthand evidential -te- in Korean show a superficial similarity in their subject restriction. They are not usually allowed in first person contexts. When the first person participants lack awareness, control or intention of the situation, -jee and -te- are allowed with first person participants, the so-called ‘first person effect’. This article proposes to divide firsthand evidentials into three subtypes depending on the referential scope of the observee: experiencer-oriented, performer-oriented and observer-oriented evidential. ‘First person effect’ is redefined in this article to incorporate examples from ‘observer-oriented evidential’.
키워드
Evidentiality, Past, Person, Mongolian, Korean, Subject Restriction, First Person Effect, Observee, Experiencer-oriented, Performer-oriented, Observer-oriented
1. INTRODUCTION
Korean and Mongolian have several grammatical forms that can be used to describe past situations. In Korean,
2. PAST TENSE MARKERS IN MONGOLIAN
Mongolian has three suffixes (
(1)
early before time-Dat one sea-Gen border-Dat 7 grey rat be-JEE
(2)
this evening we:Nom two together restaurant-Dat eat-LAA
‘This evening the two of us ate in a restaurant.’
(3)
Waitress we:Dat on come-V
As shown in the following example (4), the three suffixes can occur with a past time adverbial but not with a present or future time adverbial to describe an on-going present or future situation.
(4)
Bat now/tomorrow dumpling eat-JEE/-V/-LAA
‘Bat ate/eats/will eat dumpling yesterday/ * now/ * tomorrow.’
The three suffixes are all past tense markers in that they describe past situations and cannot be used to describe present or future situations.
(5)
teacher yesterday here come-LAA
(6)
teacher yesterday here come-JEE
(7)
teacher yesterday here come-V
Sentences (5–7) describe the same event of [the teacher’s coming here], casting it as a past situation. They are, however, different in the way that the speaker acquired information about the event. Sentence (5) with
(8) Distinction of Mongolian Past suffixes
3. PAST TENSE AND EVIDENTIAL DISTINCTION IN KOREAN
Korean has two suffixes that can describe past situations,
(9)
Jinwoo-Nom yesterday beef-Acc eat-ESS-Decl
(10)
Jinwoo-Nom yesterday beef-Acc eat-TE-Decl
In the literature,
(11)
Jinwoo-Nom now school-Loc attend-TE-Decl/attend-ESS-Decl
‘Jinwoo attends school now.’
(12)
next month-from oil-price-Nom rise-TE-Decl/rise-ESS-Decl
‘The oil price will rise from next month.’
Example (11) describes a present situation and example (12) a future situation. They disprove the possibility that
One may think that the Korean
(13) Distinction of
Unlike the three suffixes in Mongolian, which are past tense markers having evidential connotations, the two suffixes in Korean,
6 In this article, the transcription of Korean examples follows the Yale Romanization System.
7 Some research analyzes the suffix
8 See
9 Korean also has other evidentials such as present sensory observation
4. SUBJECT RESTRICTION AND FIRST PERSON EFFECT
Evidentials often interact with the grammatical person of participants. Some evidentials are preferred to other evidentials in the first person context. Languages with grammatical evidentials normally choose a firsthand (direct knowledge) evidential to describe the speaker’s own action or situation
Mongolian shows similar restrictions. While non-firsthand past
(14) a.
I(Nom)/You(Nom)/He(Nom) day-Gen meal eat-FirstPast
b. *
I(Nom)/You(Nom)/He(Nom) day-Gen meal eat-Conn be-NonfirstPast
c.
I(Nom)/You(Nom)/He(Nom) day-Gen meal eat-NeutralPast
(15) a.
I(Nom)/You(Nom)/He(Nom) yesterday London-Loc come-FirstPast
‘I/You/He came to London yesterday.’
b. *
c .
The reason firsthand evidentials are preferred in the first person context seems self-evident. Unless we are unconscious or forgot what we did, we perceive our own activities through firsthand information, not through secondary or hearsay information. It would be counterintuitive for the speaker to present their own activity or situation with non-firsthand evidentials. Therefore, firsthand evidentials are preferably employed to describe first person situations.
(16) Pragmatic presupposition and evidential implication in a first person sentence
a. Pragmatic presupposition: the speaker knows about their own activity or situation through firsthand information.
b. Evidential implication: a first person sentence implies firsthand evidential.
Since the first person sentence implies firsthand evidential, employing nonfirsthand evidential for a first person situation would cause a semantic collision, which is the reason non-firsthand evidentials are avoided in first person contexts.
The semantic collision, however, does not always prevent the use of first person with non-firsthand evidential. Some languages allow non-firsthand evidential with first person, adding semantic overtones of lack of control, volition, intention or awareness with first person, the so-called ‘first person effect’ in
In Jarawara (a Madi language, southern Amazonia), if the speaker knew what he was doing when he got drunk (he deliberately got drunk), firsthand evidential is appropriate (example 17). If the speaker woke up drunk and didn’t remember what he had done the previous night, non-firsthand evidential is used (example 18)
(17)
1Sg.Sub-be:drunk-ImmPastEyewit.Fem 1Sg-Decl.Fem
(18)
1Sg.Sub-be:drunk-Imm.PastNonEyewit.Fem 1Sg-Decl.Fem
When non-firsthand evidential, inferential, is used in a first person context in Yukaghir (a Yukaghir language: Saha Repbulic), it implies inadvertent actions over which one has hardly any control
(19)
I knife forget-Infr-Intr:1Sg
(20)
[sit-SS:Impfv] then sleep-Pfv-Infr-Intr:1Sg
Mongolian also shows examples of first person effect. Though Mongolian usually does not allow
(21)
I(Nom) pass-Pfv night deeply sleep-NeutralPast/-FirstPast/-NonfirstPast
‘I slept deeply last night.’
(22)
I(Nom) yesterday very get:drunk-NeutralPast/-FirstPast/-NonfirstPast
‘I was drunk yesterday.’
(23)
I(Nom) school at hat-Refl forget-NeutralPast/-FirstPast/-NonfirstPast
‘I forgot my hat at school yesterday.’
Examples (21–23) allow all the three past suffixes with a first person subject. Examples with
In
If one of the participants is ‘I’, a non-firsthand or a non-visual evidential may gain a range of additional meanings… non-intentional, non-volitional, and generally lacking in control or awareness of what is happening (p. 220). When the observer is first person, certain seemingly counterintuitive evidential choices develop specific overtones. Non-firsthand evidentials… may acquire additional meanings of lack of intention, control, awareness, and volition on the part of the speaker (p. 237).
(24) First person effect I (tentative)
When non-firsthand evidentials are used to describe first person events, they gain the semantic implications of lack of intention, volition, control or awareness.
The definition of ‘first person effect’ in
(25) First person effect II (tentative)
When the first person participant lacks awareness, control, or intention in relation to what is happening, non-firsthand evidentials are allowed to describe first person events.
It is a well-known and baffling phenomenon in the literature of Korean linguistics that Korean
(26) a. *
I-Nom/You-Nom/Jinwoo-Nom lunch-Acc eat-First-Decl
‘I/You/Jinwoo was/were eating lunch. (I saw it.)’
b.
I-Nom/You-Nom/Jinwoo-Nom lunch-Acc eat-Past-Decl
‘I/You/Jinwoo ate lunch.’
(27) a. *
I-Nom/You-Nom/Jinwoo-Nom school-Loc go-First-Decl
‘I/You/Jinwoo went to school. (I saw it.)’
b.
I-Nom/You-Nom/Jinwoo-Nom school-Loc go-Past-Decl
‘I/You/Jinwoo went to school.’
On the surface, the subject restrictions of the Korean
Korean
(28)
surroundings-Acc look:around-Conn I-only socwu-Acc drink-First-Decl
‘When I looked around, (I found) I was the only one who was drinking socwu.’
(29)
Mind-Acc collect-Conn I-Top hospital:room-Loc exist-First-Decl
‘When I came to my senses, I found myself in the hospital.’
(30)
last:night dream-Loc I-Nom park-Acc alone wander-Conn go-First-Decl
‘(I saw) I was wandering around alone in a park in the dream I had last night.’
Situations in examples (28–30) look similar to those of ‘first person effect’ discussed above. The situation is uncontrolled or non-intentional, or the speaker was not aware of the situation when it was happening. They, however, differ from typical examples of first person effect. If we follow the criteria for first person effect set in (25), non-firsthand evidentials appear in the first person context when the first person participant does not have awareness, control, or intention in relation to the situation. Korean examples (28–30) are different in that they have the firsthand evidential
(Table 1). Subject restrictions of the Korean
5. TYPOLOGY OF FIRSTHAND EVIDENTIALS: BASED ON THE REFERENTIAL SCOPE OF THE OBSERVEE
Evidential systems across the world vary in how complex they are, and in what meanings they encode
In Tariana, visual evidentials are used to express information obtained through seeing (example 31), whereas non-visual evidentials are used to describe things one can hear but not see (example 32)
(31)
wood-Cl:Vert one-Cl:branch-Dim 1Sg-break 1Sg-stick 1Sg+get-Rem.Past.Vis
‘I broke a branch of a tree and stuck (it into the hole)’
(32)
blood smell.of.fish-Aug-Pres.Nonvis
‘There is a smell of (human) blood’ (said the evil spirit)
In Oksapmin, if the information was acquired visually, the verb is formally unmarked as in example (33). If the events were perceived through senses other than sight (hearing, tasting, smelling or feeling), they are expressed with a verb stem plus the verb ‘do’
(33)
two men they:two we went:down
(34)
plane coming’ plane come-Seq do-Imm.past
Firsthand evidentials can also be divided into subgroups according to the temporal point when the relevant information is acquired. Korean has two firsthand evidentials,
(35)
puppy-Nom meal-Acc well eat-TE-Decl
(36)
puppy-Nom meal-Acc well eat-NEY
In (35) the information was acquired in the past, whereas the temporal point when the information is acquired in (36) is concomitant with the speech moment.
In this article we propose that firsthand evidentials can also be divided into subtypes depending on the referential scope of the observee (the one/thing who/which is observed).
There are, however, other kinds of firsthand evidentials whose referential scopes are different. In Kashaya (a Pomo language spoken in northern California), among other firsthand evidentials, they have ‘performative’ suffixes which ‘signify that the speaker knows of what he speaks because he is performing the act himself or has just performed it’
(37)
pack-Performative:Imperfective
(38)
pack-Performative:Perfective
What is special with performative suffixes in Kashaya is that the subject is always the first person. In other words, the performative suffixes cannot be used to describe an event performed by someone else except the speaker.
(39)
pack-Factual:Imperfective
(40)
pack-Visual:Perfective
A similar firsthand evidential is reported in Central Pomo, which has a form used to mark ‘personal experience of one’s own actions’ (Mithun 1999:181). Central Pomo has various evidential enclitics, as shown in (41). As in Kashaya, Central Pomo employs different firsthand evidentials depending on who is the performer. When the performer is not the speaker, it uses the firsthand personal experience =
(41) a.
rain:fall-General.Knowledge
b.
rain:fall-Firsthand.Personal.Experience
c.
rain:fall-Hearsay
d.
rain:fall-Auditory.Evidence
e.
rain:fall-Inference
f.
pulling-seize-Pfv-Personal.Agency
Performative in Kishaya and personal agency in Central Pomo are firsthand evidentials. They, however, differ from the ‘experiencer-oriented evidential’ in that they are exclusively used to describe events performed by the speaker himself. In this type, the referential scope of the observee is confined to the evidential origo of observation, the speaker. We call this type of firsthand evidential ‘performeroriented evidential’.
The Korean
The three types of firsthand evidentials can be summarized as in
(Table 2). Types of firsthand evidentials based on referential scope of observee
In section (4) we discussed subject restriction and first person effect. There we mentioned that firsthand evidentials are preferred in the first person context and when first person occurs with non-firsthand evidentials, it is in the context of lack of awareness, intention or control on the part of the speaker. When we divide firsthand evidentials into three types in
‘Observer-oriented evidential’ is different from ‘experiencer-oriented evidential’ or ‘performer-oriented evidential’. Observer-oriented evidentials are not used in describing the speaker’s own performance unlike experiencer- or performer-oriented evidentials. As we observed in section (4), the Korean firsthand evidential
Both ‘non-firsthand evidentials’ and ‘observer-oriented firsthand evidentials’ are similar in that they are not allowed to describe first person situations. In similar situations, however, they can occur with first person participants. When the first person participants lack awareness, control or intention of the situation, they are allowed with first person participants. Non-firsthand evidential usage in first person contexts is called ‘first person effect’ in the literature. In this article, we think that ‘observer-oriented firsthand evidential’ usage in first person contexts should be dealt with in the same way. Based on these observations, which were made by dividing firsthand evidential into three subtypes, the definition of ‘first person effect’ can be modified as follows.
(42) First person effect (revised)
When the first person participant lacks awareness, control, or intention of what is happening, ‘non-firsthand evidentials’ or ‘observer-oriented firsthand evidentials’ may be allowed to describe first person events.
The nature of ‘first person effect’ is that evidentials which are inadequate for first person are allowed to occur in first person contexts when the first person participant is not aware of the situation or does not have control of or intention in the situation.
10 The ‘evidential origo’ refers to the person from whose perspective a given evidential is evaluated
11 The forms on the left of the arrow are in an underlying morphophonemic representation and the one on the right is its surface representation
12 A reviewer of this article pointed out the possibility that the performative suffix in Kashaya may be a first person marking. According to
13 Comparing Korean, Mongolian and Amdo Tibetan,
6. CONCLUSION
In this article we examined grammatical forms of Mongolian and Korean that can be used to describe past situations. The three Mongolian suffixes
To explain such idiosyncrasies of Korean firsthand
참고문헌(32)
-
[단행본]
2003a
“Evidentiality in typological perspective.” In Aikehnvald & Dixon (eds.)
1
-
[단행본]
2003b
“Evidentiality in Tariana.” In Aikehnvald & Dixon (eds.)
131
-
[단행본]
2004
Evidentiality .Oxford University Press
-
[단행본]
2003
Studies in Evidentiality .John Benjamins
-
[참고문헌]
1984
“Evidentials in the Tuyuka verb.”
International Journal of American Linguistics 50 : 255 - 271
10.1086/465835
-
[참고문헌]
1990
“On the Pragmatic Differentiation of the Mongolian Past Tenses.”
Mongolian Studies (Journal of the Mongolian Society)13 : 47 - 56
-
[단행본]
1986
Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology .Ablex Publishing Corporation
-
[단행본]
2003
“Evidentiality in Jarawara.” In Aikhenvald 7 Dixon (eds.)
165
-
[학위논문]
“Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan.”
2001
University of California / Ph.D. diss.
-
[학위논문]
“Korean Evidentials in Discourse.”
2012
The University of Texas / Ph.D. diss.
-
[단행본]
2004
Hankuke-uy sicey seopeop tongcaksang (Tense, mood and aspect in Korean).Thaehaksa
-
[학위논문]
“Viewpoints in the Korean Verbal Complex: Evidence, Perception, Assessment, and Time.”
2012
University of California / Ph.D. diss.
-
[학위논문]
“Evidentiality and its interaction with tense: Evidence from Korean.”
2011
The Ohio State University / PhD dissertation
-
[학위논문]
“Evidentials and Interrogatives: A Case Study from Korean.”
2010
University of Southern California / PhD Dissertation
-
[참고문헌]
1972
“On the relation of formal to semantic matrices with illustrations from Nambiquara.”
Foundations of Language 8 : 360 - 390
-
[단행본]
1968
Orčin Cagiĭn Mongol Xelniĭ Bütec (Modern Mongolian Structure).Academy of Sciences
-
[단행본]
2003
“Evidentiality in Yukaghir.” In Aikhenvald and Dixon (eds.)
219
-
[단행본]
2003
“Evidentials in Eastern Pomo with a comparative survey of the category in other Pomoan languages.” In Aikehnvald & Dixon (eds.)
101
-
[단행본]
1978
Orčin üyeiĭn Mongol bičigiĭn xelniĭ dadlagiĭn xel züĭ (Modern practical written Mongolian grammar).National University of Mongolia
-
[단행본]
2009
Hankwuke-uy sicey pemcwu (Tense Categories of Korean).Thaehaksa
-
[단행본]
1978
Kwuke mwunpep-uy siceymwuncey-ey kwanhan yenkwu (A study of Korean tenses).Tower Press
-
[단행본]
1986
“The Evidential System of Kashaya.” In Chafe and Nichols (eds.)
29
-
[단행본]
1963
Mongorugo yonshukan: Mongol Xeliĭg Dörvön Garagt (Mongolian in four weeks).Daigakushorin
-
[단행본]
1994
Orčin Cagiĭn Mongol Xelniĭ Ügzüĭ (Modern Mongolian Morphology).Pedagogical State University of Mongolia
-
[단행본]
1988
Kwuke hwalyongemi-uy hyengthay-wa uymi (Forms and meanings of Korean inflectional suffixes).Thaehaksa
-
[단행본]
1999
The Korean Language .Cambridge University Press
-
[학위논문]
“Tense, Aspect and Modality in Khalkha Mongolian.”
1997
SOAS, University of London / Ph.D. diss.
-
[참고문헌]
1998
“Anmaycumssikkuth ‘-te-’-uy uymi kinung-ey tayhaye: yuhyengloncek kwancem-eyse” (Semantic functions of the suffix
-te- : from a typological perspective).Kwukehak (Journal of Korean Linguistics)32 : 135 - 169
-
[참고문헌]
2002
“A Typological Analysis of the Korean Evidential Marker
-te .”Eoneohag 32 : 147 - 164
-
[참고문헌]
2007
“Cungkeseng-kwa cwue-ceyyak-uy yuhyenglon [Typology of evidentiality and subject restriction: based on Korean, Mongolian and Tibetan].”
Hyengthaylon [Morphology]9(1) : 1 - 23
-
[기타]
“Evidentiality in Korean.”
Presented at the Pre-JK Linguistics Workshop
-
[참고문헌]
1988
“A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality.”
Studies in Language 12(1) : 51 - 97
10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
2 Mongolian examples in this article are taken fromSong (1997) . Mongolian has another suffix -san which can describe past situations. However, it is not a tense marker but an aspect marker, Perfective, and does not indicate any evidential meaning, for which reason it is not included in this article (cf. Song 1997) .
3 The Mongolian Cyrillic letters are transliterated as /a b v g d ye yo j z i ĭ k l m n o ö p r s t u ü f x c č š šč ' ī ` e yu ya/, respectively. The following abbreviations are used: Acc (accusative), Aug (augmentative), Cl (classifier), Conn (connective), Dat (dative-locative), Decl (Declarative), Dim (diminutive), Eyewit (eyewitness), Fem (feminine), First (firsthand), Gen (genitive), IK (indirect knowledge), Imm (immediate), Impfv (imperfective), Infr (inference), Intr (intransitive), Loc (locative), Nom (nominative), Nonfirst (non-firsthand), Nonvis (non-visual), Past (past), Pfv (perfective), Pres (present), Refl (reflexive), Rem (remote), Seq (sequence), Sg (singular), SS (same subject marker), Sub (subject) Top (topic), Vert (vertical), Vis (visual).
4 It is generally accepted in the literature that the three Mongolian suffixes are past tense markers(cf. Luvsanvandan 1968:75-78 , Mishig 1978:119 , Binnick 1990 , Önörbayan 1994:203 , Song 1997:160–210) .
5 The suffixes-laa and -jee are labeled as ‘Direct Knowledge Past’ and ‘Indirect Knowledge Past’ respectively in Song (1997) . Along with other distinctions, the three suffixes were often differentiated in their remoteness in previous studies: Immediate Past -laa , Recent Past -v and Remote Past -jee in Mishig (1978:119) : Very Close Past -laa , Simple Past -v and Relatively Close Past -jee in Ozawa (1963:45, 66–69) . See Song (1997:160–183) for previous studies about the three suffixes and their problems.