Article

서사 담화의 ‘역사적 현재’에 관한 연구

김인환1, 여현정1, 최동주1,*
Inhwan Kim1, Hyeonjeong Yeo1, Dongju Choi1,*
Author Information & Copyright
1영남대학교
1Yeungnam University
*Corresponding Author : 교수, 국어국문학과, 영남대학교 경상북도 경산시 대학로 280, E-mail: djchoi@ynu.ac.kr

ⓒ Copyright 2018 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Nov 10, 2018 ; Revised: Dec 18, 2018 ; Accepted: Dec 20, 2018

Published Online: Dec 31, 2018

ABSTRACT

The purposes of this paper are to explain how Historical Present(HP) can express past situations, and to investigate characteristic aspects of narrative clauses in which HP occurs, and the differences in motivation to use HP depending on genres. First, we argued that in using HP the speaker assumes new space similar to screen of the movie, through which the speaker/hearer can watch the past situation, so that they feel as if it were now present before their eyes. Second, by analysing oral and written narratives in Korean, we have found that 1) not ‘갑자기(all of a sudden)’ but ‘막(violently, or recklessly)’ tends to co-occur with HP in Korean, 2) deictic expressions occasionally change with HP, but not always. 3) in case of oral narratives, HP is more frequently used than other tense forms with verbs of saying in reporting sentences, regardless of directness of reporting. Finally, it was suggested that, depending on genre, the motivation to use HP seems to be different. In oral narratives, it is more dramatic and for vividness. In written narratives, however, it is more strategic, for example, for the purpose of marking important situation or dividing scenes of the story.

Keywords: narrative; historical present; narrative tense; deixis; tense shift

References

1.

고영근. (2008). "민족문학작품과 서사시제", 관악어문연구 , 33, 55-108.

2.

김금희 외. (2017). 제62회 현대문학상 수상소설집 , 현대문학.

3.

권영민. (1995). 한국의 문학비평 , 민음사.

4.

김영하 외. (1999). 제44회 현대문학상 수상소설집 , 현대문학.

5.

김원우 외. (1999). 한국 대표단편 57인 선집 , 프레스21.

6.

김정남. (1994). "현대소설의 지문에 나타나는 시상의 양상과 기능", 텍스트언어학 , 1, 317-340.

7.

김정남. (2010). "소설 텍스트 시제이동의 한 가지 새로운 기능", 텍스트언어학 , 28, 1-22.

8.

나도향. (2014). 벙어리 삼룡이 , 문학과지성사.

9.

목수현. (1991). 밥 해 먹으믄 바느질허랴 바느질 아니믄 빨래허랴(민중자서전 18) , 뿌리깊은나무.

10.

문숙영. (2005). 한국어 시제 범주 연구 , 서울대학교 대학원 문학박사학위논문.

11.

문숙영. (2008). "시제 어미 및 시제 상당 표현의 사용과 관련한 몇 문제", 한국어 의미학 , 27, 45-73.

12.

문숙영. (2011). "접속문의 시제 현상과 상대시제", 한국어학 , 50, 141-172.

13.

문숙영. (2012). "인용과 화시소의 전이", 국어학 , 65, 219-249.

14.

박완서. (1999). 자전거 도둑 , 다림.

15.

배희한. (1992). 이제 이 조선톱에도 녹이 슬었네(민중자서전 2) , 뿌리깊은나무.

16.

서영환. (2010). "역사적 현재시제의 담화-화용적 기능", 현대영미어문학 , 28-1, 191-214.

17.

서영환. (2014). "레이먼드 카버의 소설에 나타난 네러티브 현재시제 연구", 현대영미어문학 , 32-2, 73-95.

18.

서정수. (1976). "국어 시상 형태의 의미분석 연구", 문법연구 , 제3집, 83-158, 문법연구회.

19.

서정수. (1992). (증보개정판) 국어 문법의 연구 Ⅰ , 한국문화사.

20.

서정수. (1994). 국어 문법 , 뿌리깊은나무.

21.

송해정. (2013). "'역사적 현재시제' 다시보기 - 러시아어의 언어특성 분석을 통하여", 언어와 언어학 , 59, 99-120.

22.

이인영. (1993). "소위 "역사적 현재"에 관하여 - 러시아어를 중심으로", 슬라브학보 , 8, 101-151.

23.

조남현 외. (2007). 문학과지성사 한국문학선집1, 2 , 문학과지성사.

24.

조민정. (2015). "문법화에 따른 '막'의 기능 및 의미 변화 연구", 한국사전학 , 26, 177-215.

25.

최동주. (1995=2015). 국어 시상체계의 통시적 변화 , 국어학회.

26.

최동주. (2014). "담화에서의 언어 표현의 선택 -『여수엑스포 길라잡이』의 담화 분석-", 인문연구 , 72, 1-30.

27.

최지현. (2005). 담화표지 '막'의 기능 연구 , 목포대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문.

28.

황순원. (1999). 소나기 , 다림.

29.

Abbott, H.P. (2008). The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.

30.

Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. The University of Chicago Press.

31.

Choi, Young-Seok. (2002). On the meaning and function of the historical present tense. 현대문법연구, 27, 147-160.

32.

Chong, Hi-Ja. (1988). The function of tense in Korean narrative. 언어, 13-2, 363-402.

33.

Cutrer, M. (1994). Time and tense in narrative and in everyday language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.

34.

Fairclough, N. (2003), Analysing Discourse - Texual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge.

35.

Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces, Cambridge University Press.

36.

Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mapping in Thought and Language, Cambridge University Press.

37.

Goldsmith, J. and E. Woisetschlaeger (1982). The logic of the English progressive, Linguistic Inquiry, 13-1, 79-89.

38.

Jespersen, O. (1931). A Modern English Grammar - on Historical Principles, PART Ⅳ, SYNTAX, third volume, Time and Tense. George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

39.

Kiparsky. (1968). Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax. Foundations of Language, 4-1, 30-57.

40.

Labov, W. and J. Waletzky. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In Helm, J. ed., Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, 12-44. University of Washington Press.

41.

Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In Labov W, Language in the Inner City, 354-396. University of Pennsylvania Press.

42.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of Coignitive Grammar, Volume Ⅱ, Descriptive Application. Stanford University Press.

43.

Schiffrin, D. (1981). Tense variation in narrative. Language 57(1), 45-62.

44.

Silva-Corvalán, C. (1983). Tense and aspect in oral spanish narrative: Context and meaning, Language 59(4), 760-780.

45.

Wolfson, N. (1979). The conversational historical present alternation, Language 55(1), 168-182.

The submission guidelines have been revised.


The submission guidelines of the Language Research have been revised as of September 25, 2019.

Please check and submit new papers based on the new guidelines.

https://www.elanguageresearch.org/author/guideline

Thank you for your interest in the Language Research.

I don't want to open this window for a day.