대한언어학회 전자저널

Choi, Youngju & Kim, Eunjin. (2016). Finding Out Metonymic Meaning Extensions of Neologisms michin and phokphwung Based on Their Collocational Environment. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 24(4), 261-280. This paper explores various meanings of the words michin and phokphwung, based on their collocational environment. Michin, whose original meaning is insane, recently achieves the positive meaning, excellent. The new meaning is actively used with various types of collocates. The active use of the positive meaning is the result of the A CONCEPT FOR ITS OPPOSITE metonymy. Similarly, phokphwung, whose original meaning is a big storm, also achieves a new meaning, 'very big' or 'of great amount' changing its categorical status to an adjective. The meaning change occurs through the metonymy A CATEGORY FOR ITS PROPERTY. The property of a big storm, very big and strong, is referred to by the big storm itself. Close examination of their nominal collocates reveals that they extend their meanings further, exploiting other types of metonymies. It also reveals that they happen to merge their meanings to excellent with nominals describing ones appearance, singing and acting ability, and so on. The differences and similarities of the meanings of michin and phokphwung are supported by the results of the questionnaire which is designed to find out how the two words are distinguished in given contexts.

# michin # phokphwung # collocational environment # collocate # A CONCEPT FOR ITS OPPOSITE metonymy # A CATEGORY FOR ITS PROPERTY metonymy

• 강현화. (1998). [체언+용언] 꼴의 연어 구성에 대한 연구. 사전편찬학연구, 8, 191-224.
• 김진해. (1999). 연어(collocation)의 의미 관계에 대하여. 한국어의미학, 4, 239-279.
• 임근석. (2011). 한국어 연어 연구의 전개와 쟁점에 대하여. 국어학, 61, 359-387.
• 임유종. (2011). 연어의 개념과 범주 한정의 제 문제. 국제어문, 36, 145-181.
• 임홍빈. (2005). 한국어 연어의 개념과 그 통사ㆍ의미적 성격. 국어학, 39, 279-320.
• 이윤경. (2009). 코퍼스 기반 한국 대학생의 어휘적 연어 능력 연구. 현대문법연구, 57, 245-266.
• 이은경. (2005). 명사를 중심으로 하는 문법적 연어 구성. 한국어의미학, 17, 177-205.
• 최형강. (2012). 연어의 논항과 의미역 -“명사+부리다” 연어 구성을 중심으로-. 한국어학, 57, 357-382.
• Bednarek, M. (2008). Semantic preference and semantic prosody Re-examined. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory 4.(2), 119-139.
• Bublitz, W. (1995). Semantic prosody and cohesive company: Somewhat predictable. General and Theoretical Papers 247, 1-23.
• Radden, G. & Kovecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17-59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Wentworth, H. & Flexner, S. (1967). Dictionary of American Slang. New York: Crowell.