관용어의 통사 의미론적 제약 연구

목차

Ⅰ. 서론
1. 문제 제기 및 연구 목적
2. 선행 연구
3. 연구 방법
Ⅱ. 본론
1. 관용어의 성격 및 유형
1.1 관용어의 성격
1.2 관용어의 유형
1.2.1. 체언형 관용어
1.2.2. 용언형 관용어
1.2.3 미완결형 관용어
2. 관용어와 어휘부
2.1. 어휘부의 성격
2.2. 어휘부에서 관용어, 합성어, 구의 관계
2.2.1. 관용어와 합성어
2.2.2. 관용어와 구
2.2.3. 관용어와 이른바 ‘N+V형 합성어’
3. 관용어의 형태‧통사론적 제약
3.1. 관용어의 형태‧통사론적 제약
3.1.1. 수식
3.1.2 피동‧사동 변형
3.1.3 대명사화
3.1.4 주제화
3.1.5 분열문
3.1.6 삭제
3.1.7 반복
3.1.8 대치
3.1.9 대립어의 존재
3.1.10 부정
3.2. 관용어와 논항 구조
4. 관용어의 의미론적 제약
4.1. 단일 어휘소 형성 : 통사적 변형에 대한 의미론적 동기
4.2. 관용 의미와 직설 의미의 관계
5. 관용어의 해석 기제
5.1. 관용어의 해석 기제
5.2. 관용어 우선 해석 규약
Ⅲ. 결론

참고문헌

본문내용

rst, idioms that has different argument structures from indicatives such as dam(- l) ssah-tta 'to break relationship'; second, those that has the same argument structures as indicatives such as son(- l) jab-tta 'to cooperate'; third, those that indicatives do not have any argument structures such as sichimi(-l l) tte-da 'denial'. All of these argument structures will have to make entries in lexicon.
7. In idioms, idiomatic meanings are generally equal to indicative ones in the position. So some argue that idioms without indicative meanings are not idioms, but collocations: name a few, sichimi(-l l) tte-da 'denial', ssangsimji(-l l) khi -da 'to oppose severely', and gamthu(l l) ss -da 'to take office'. But such idioms are not necessa- rily omitted in idioms. Collocations and idioms are not distinguished strictly according that they have indicative meanings or not, but considered that both of them can be piled one on another. That is, idioms can be distinguished from collocations according that they can form the third meanings or not. So there are idioms that are colloca- tiom at the same time. This paper considers that there are idioms that are used only as idiomatic meanings when we consider the relation between idiomatic meanings and indicative ones in the view of freque- ncies of use.
8. The interpretation mechanism : Idioms are listed in lexicon. Once exposed to syntactic component, they can be transformed by various rules. Thanks to the transformations, their structures may be broken often. To solve such phenomenon, some introduce the concept, "the reco- verability of a structure." That is, after an idiom listed in lexicon is derived in syntactic component, we make its syntactic structure of the phrase construct recovered. But it results in adding an abstract explanatory mechanism to grammar and lacking in generality of explanation. This paper tries to solve the problem by regulating the categorial characteristic of idioms listed in lexicon different from words. I decide the category of idioms as follows; they are a listeme lexically, but a phrase construct able to be transformed syntactically. And then I consider that they are applied not only in lexicon, but also in syntax. That is, writing down idioms' syntactic characteristic, phrase constructs, as well as their meanings in lexicon, we don't have to need another interpretation mechanism in the derivational process from lexicon to syntax.
9. The idiom priority interpretation convention : The semantic interpretation of idioms is prior to that of individual lexemes that consist of the idiom. Many of them have indicative meanings as well as idiomatic ones. In general, the frequencies that idioms are interpreted to idiomatic meaning is higher than indicative meaning (Chafe 1968). The reason is that, if two parts that consist of lexicon, lexical items with special meanings and word formation rule, appear in the same form, the former is inclined to be interpreted in the advance of the latter.

키워드

관용어,   용언형,   체언형,   단어,   문장,   어휘적 성격