quotation sentences; judgement; specific; generic; object of the judgment; objective fact
언어, v. 30, No. 3, Page. 479 - 493
This paper aims to identify semantic characteristics of the quotative construction, semantic properties of the accusative form in the construction, and semantic differences between the two sub-types that exist in the construction: one that allows a free accusative-nominative interchange and the other that hardly allows this. Following are some major findings made in this paper. The quotative construction expresses a judgment that the matrix subject makes on a thing or affair, and the construction consists of agent, action, content, and object of the judgment. Objects of judgment are divided into two types: a subject function and a question function. Besides the four factors mentioned above, an objective fact can be expressed in the construction. An accusative form that has a subject function can be used, if it refers to a specific or generic thing and the embedded predicate describes [+static] situation. In this paper this is called the 'judgment object property'. On the other hand, the accusative form that expresses an objective fact does not demand such conditions. It represents a proposition or predication. Both in the judgment object construction and in the objective fact construction, the accusative form can be replaced by a nominative form, although this is very restricted in the latter construction. The two variant forms in the latter construction show substantial difference in cognitive scope interpretation, while those in the former construction do not. This paper argues that this is so because the former sentences focus on the intension of the referent, while the latter sentences focus on the characteristics, social status and state of the referent.