???? ?? ?? ¡®-?-¡¯? ?? ?? ?? ¡ª ??? '????'? ??? ???? ¡ª (The Function of Modern Korean ¨Ces¨C in Discourse)

This paper contrasts newly introduced past tense -es- and the pre-existing past tense -?- in Modern Korean, in respect of their function in discourse. It is well known that Modern Korean past tense -es- was grammatized from the 15th century Korean -e is- which represented the resultative aspect, resulting in Contemporary Korean past tense -ess-. However, little attention has been paid to the difference between two past tenses -es- and -?- which co-existed in Modern Korean. After examining Manchu-Korean translation in <Samyekchonghay Èý×g¿‚½â>(1744), I found a strong correspondence between Manchu past perfective -ha and Korean -?-, and Manchu present perfect -habi and Korean ¨Ces-, respectively. Typologically, it is reported that past perfective is used to represent foregrounded events in succession, whereas present perfect is used to describe backgrounded information. Thus, Modern Korean past tenses -?- and -es- differ in function in discourse.

This paper contrasts newly introduced past tense -es- and the pre-existing past tense -?- in Modern Korean, in respect of their function in discourse. It is well known that Modern Korean past tense -es- was grammatized from the 15th century Korean -e is- which represented the resultative aspect, resulting in Contemporary Korean past tense -ess-. However, little attention has been paid to the difference between two past tenses -es- and -?- which co-existed in Modern Korean. After examining Manchu-Korean translation in <Samyekchonghay Èý×g¿‚½â>(1744), I found a strong correspondence between Manchu past perfective -ha and Korean -?-, and Manchu present perfect -habi and Korean ¨Ces-, respectively. Typologically, it is reported that past perfective is used to represent foregrounded events in succession, whereas present perfect is used to describe backgrounded information. Thus, Modern Korean past tenses -?- and -es- differ in function in discourse.