http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
강명윤 국제언어인문학회 2007 인문언어 Vol.9 No.-
In this paper, I have provided a critique to Chomsky’s philosophical background to the linguistics. First, I have detailed some similarities between Chomsky’s and Kant’s framework of mind, to the effect that they both belong to the “constitutionist” vein of philosophical thought. I then discuss some critiques of Schopenhauer to Kant’s philosophy, which illustrated a well-defined critique to various brands of the “constitutionist” thoughts. Via some discussions of Phenomenology, which again illustrate the non-constitutionist thoughts, we then proceed to the historical aspects of language, whose issue, in my view, is unsolvable in the constitutionist frameworks like Chomsky’s and Kant’s.
A Minimalist Interpretation of In Seok Yang's Ideas
강명윤 한국언어학회 2010 언어 Vol.35 No.4
Kang, Myung-Yoon. 2010. A Minimalist Interpretation of In-Seok Yang's Ideas. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 35-4, 863-882. This paper discusses the main points of In‐Seok Yang’s ground‐breaking work, Korean Syntax(1972), which can be viewed as an monumental work in Korean syntax within the early Chomskyan framework, and evaluates its significance within the recent minimalist theory. As it turns out, Yang’s arguments about Multiple Case Constructions can be re‐illuminated as a cartographic structures of Specs within IP, similar to the cartographic structures recently suggested by Rizzi(1997, 2004). Other important aspects of Yang’s theory concern sentential complementation constructions, in which he argued for clausal reduction and verbal compounding, and some of which provide significant dilemma in modern GB or minimalist frameworks. Some other Korean constructions involving so‐called Equi‐subject constructions offer other dilemmas, but some of them may in fact be shown to support little v analysis within recent minimalist framework. (Korea University)
한국어의 형태론적 피/사동 현상의 소형구절구조 이론적 접근
강명윤 서울대학교 어학연구소 1997 語學硏究 Vol.33 No.1
In this paper, I considered the claim that Korean morphological causativization/passivization (Caus/Pass for short) is lexically introduced in Korean grammar. I showed that showed Korean morphological Caus/Pass cannot be viewed as lexical, since their superficial "irregularity" can be accounted for with some well-motivated principles. Thus, I concluded that Korean morphological Caus/Pass should be a syntactic phenomenon. Furthermore, I argued in this paper that, when we assume the (slightly revised) Bare Phrase Structure framework, we can answer elegantly the traditional question of why an identical morpheme triggers but causativization and passivization.