A study on the Constructions of ‘ey(neun)’, ‘ro(neun)’ Combined with Information Source

The objective of this study is twofold: firstly, to analyse the patterns of combination between lexical elements indicating information sources and case markers in Korean; secondly, to explore the relationship between investigation and evidentiality. The ‘evidentiality’ is used to describe a linguistic category that indicates how a speaker acquires information. In accordance with Willett’s (1988) classification, this study categorizes evidence into three types based on the degree of directness: sensory evidence, internal evidence, and reported evidence. The combination of case markers ‘ey(neun)’ and ‘ro(neun)’ with lexical elements denoting information sources gives rise to preferences contingent on the type of evidence in question. In the context of sensory evidence, the use of the case marker ‘ey(neun)’ is more prevalent, whereas the case marker ‘ro(neun)’ is more frequently employed in the context of reported evidence. In the case of internal evidence, which is based on the speaker’s internal cognition, the choice of case marker varies depending on the extent to which the speaker was involved in acquiring the information. In instances where the information is evaluated directly by the speaker, the ‘ey(neun)’ case marker is typically employed. However, when the information is derived from the speaker’s memory and is less clear, the use of ‘ro(neun)’ is preferred due to its greater indirectness. This study elucidates the distinctions in the conjunctional patterns of ‘ey(neun)’ and ‘ro(neun)’ in accordance with evidentiality, with a particular emphasis on their denotations pertaining to movement, alteration, and demarcation. The ‘ey(neun)’ is devoid of the concept of change and is typically associated with sensory evidence and internal evidence that pertains to clear judgments made by the speaker. In contrast, ‘ro(neun)’ reflects the mobility of information and is used with reported evidence and internal evidence where boundary-setting is less distinct. While ‘ey(neun)’ and ‘ro(neun)’ may not independently function as evidential markers, the findings confirm that they indirectly reveal the speaker’s perception of the information source.