複數性과 複數化

Plurality and Pluralization

Pluralization in Korean is one of the most elusive and tricky problems which require explanations in a systematic way. Stemmed from the scheme proposed in A Korean Grammar by Ramstedt (1939), it has generally been held until recently that there exist three different kinds of pluralization in Korean, without making precise’ the functional difference between the suffixation of tul and the one of ney, on the one hand, and the reduplication of a noun, on the other. Especially, the optional occurrences of the plural marker tul invoke serious perplexities and irresolutions. At this point, attention should be drawn to the Ramstedt’s view on the nature of the Korean noun. He regards the noun in Korean as expressing the universal and general idea of the corresponding thing. As far as the optionality of occurrence of tul after the noun which refers plural entities, this view has a certain theoretical advantage, but becomes untenable in the case of reduplication which refers entities one by one and therefore presupposes the sufficient concreteness. We begin by noting the fact that the Korean language has nothing to do with the part of speech “article.” This can be interpreted that the component meaning of “entity” is not encapsulated’ into the noun in Korean. This means that some kind of collectivity should be postulated in the nature of a noun. A noun in Korean can be defined in terms of the conception of a set or a class of entities which the noun comprises. And a noun as a class has the intensional meaning as well as the extensional one; that is to say, a noun in Korean has the usage of two kinds. As an intension of a class, a noun cannot be related to the notion of number. It seems to have the nature of generic expressions. In so far as the extensional usage of noun is concerned, a noun can be related to the notion of singularity or plurality. Since the plurality or some sort of collectivity is inherent in a noun, the pluralization can be seen as a process of individuating of the plurality intrinsic to a noun of extensional usage. However, paradoxically enough, we cannot fully explain the problem only by means of the individuating process. After the establishment of individuality, the pluralizing process should also be postulated. Individuation is to be an antecedent semantic process for pluralization. The function that the plural marker tul shows belongs to this kind. The other mechanisms like the reduplication and the ney suffixation cannot be identified with pluralization or individuation. These two processes, of course, are concerned with plurality. But our stand point is that the plurality itself does not constitute the sufficient condition for pluralizatien because plurality is the matter of the world but not the one cf lingnistic expressions. The reduplication manifests the meaning of “every entity of” or “every sort of,” counting One by one exhaustively. The ney suffixation is also characterized distinct from plurafization. The ney, suffixed no a common human noun denotes the intension of a human class, or suffixed to a proper human noun denotes a certain group or society including the very person. In the case of the former, even .a single human may be designated with the ney suffixed noun. It can be said that the ney suffixation has the function of dissolving the individuality characteristically recognized to the human noun.