• 인문언어
• /
• 제1권1호
• /
• pp.275-294
• /
• 2001

This article aims to define the nature of proverbs from a polyphonic point of view and examine different readings of the complement involved in the combination of a proverb with a verb of personal opinion. An utterer of a proverb is not himself the author of the proverb. He may well be a 'speaker' of a proverb, but from a polyphonic view point he is not an 'enunciator' of the principle that underlies it. When we say that a speaker of a proverb is not its enunciator, we do not simply mean that he is not the author of the 'content' of the proverb he speaks: we mean that he is not the author of its 'form' either. The fact that a proverb loses its proverbial character when one paraphrases it proves that its form is not at the speaker's disposal. But a single factor cannot be held responsible for what a proverb is. As an indicator of the 'wisdom of the nation,' or vox populi, a proverb is the achievement of the 'collective enunciator.' The polyphony inherent in the proverb pits a particular speaker against a collective enunciator. This collective character of the proverb as a vox populi comes from its character as a phrasal denomination. Given that a proverb reflects a collective judgment and not a personal opinion, how do we interpret the combination of a proverb with a verb of personal opinion such as I think that ...\ulcorner Such a combination gives rise to readings at distinct levels: two types of metalinguistic reading and a reading based on the content of the proverb. The first level of reading, being applicative in nature, can be local or general, depending on the speaker's opinion as to the applicability of the proverb to a situation, particular or general. These applicative readings always involve polyphonic dissociation between the speaker and the enunciator. The second level of reading, which depends on the content of the proverb, is the result of the operation of deproverbialization, which makes the proverb lose its denominative status to preserve only its status as a generic phrase. The proverb, thus deproverbialized, looks like the series 'NP + VP.' For this reading, the speaker of the proverb takes into consideration the possibility of attributing a predicate to a nominal syntagm. Here occurs an identity between the speaker and the enunciator. It is not the case, however, that one can deproverbialize just any proverbs. In approaching to a locally typifying generic phrase, a proverb admits of being deproverbialized by an opinion verb only when its form does not render it difficult, either syntactically or metaphorically, to incorporate that proverb into the relevant combination, and when the proverb intrinsically possesses the traits that meet the conditions for the use of the opinion verb at hand. One can also maintain, based on the notion of deproverbialization, that a proverb expresses a collective judgment, a deproverbialized individual judgment.

• 비교문화연구
• /
• 제46권
• /
• pp.297-325
• /
• 2017

이 논문은 언어에서 포착되는 '증거성(${\acute{e}}videntialit{\acute{e}}$)' 범주의 의미적 속성과 그 체계를 연구하기 위한 언어학적 토대연구로 진행되었다. 본 연구에서, 우리는 프랑스어와 한국어의 증거성 범주를 $Descl{\acute{e}}s$ & $Guentch{\acute{e}}va$(2000)의 '발화작용이론(la $th{\acute{e}}orie$ de $l^{\prime}op{\acute{e}}ration$ ${\acute{e}}nonciative$)'을 중심으로 비교, 분석하였다. 선행 연구를 바탕으로, 우리는 프랑스어의 문법표지인 '조건법 현재시제'와 한국어의 문법표지인 '-더-'에 드러난 증거성 범주의 의미적 가치를 기술하고, 이 범주가 언어마다 다르게 발현되는 양상을 살펴보았다. 본 연구에서 우리는 발화작용 이론을 객관적 분석 기제로 이용해, 양 언어 간에 드러나는 증거성 범주를 매개작용으로 다시 정의하고, 시상 및 양태 범주와 구별되는 범주의 구별된 위상을 규명하였다. 또한, 해당 범주의 범언어적 체계와 보편적 의미 가치를 탐색하는 일반 언어학적 연구도 병행하였다. 이를 통해, 본 연구는 '증거성' 이라는 범언어적 현상을 발화작용의 체계 내에서 통합적으로 설명해내었고, 본 연구의 결과는 응용언어학 등의 다양한 분야로 까지 확장되어 활용될 수 있는 가능성도 마련하였다.