http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
권경원 목원대학교 인문과학연구소 2002 인문과학 Vol.11 No.-
The purpose of this paper is to provide two levels of conceptualization of category such as an absolute category in semantic level end a relative category in pragmatic level on the basis of Aristotelian category theory and prototype category theory. I do not intend to criticize classical category theory and prototype category theory but to show that these two types of category are applied different world. According to the Aristotelian category theory, (1) A category in defined by inherent properties of members and individuals are divided into category members and non-category members. (2) All the members of a category have as equal qualification. (3) All the members of a category share common properties and the individual which has such properties have to be a member of the category. (4) There is a clear difference between category members and non-category members. This classical theory is based on objectivity and binary system.
It의 지시적 가치(Referential Value)에 대한 연구
권경원 연세대학교 대학원 1984 원우론집 Vol.12 No.1
It is often said that "it" in English is divided into two parts, that is, anaphoric pronoun "it" which has an antecedent and non-anaphoric pronoun "it" which does not have an antecedent. According to the transformational grammarians, the former is derived by pronominalization and the latter is derived by it-insertion and extraposition, which is considered as a dummy element that has only grammatical function. In other words they say that non-anaphoric pronoun "it" is used to fill in the empty subject position. Consider the following examples. (1) a. I found a book and it was interesting. b. It is obvious that the world is round. c. It is raining. d. What is this? It is a tree. (1, a) is an example which is derived by pronomianalization and (1, b) is derived by extraposition. (1, c) is an example of it-insertion. (1, d) which is deictic is ued in the situation which both a speaker and a hearer can see a referred thing (1, d) is also treated as non-anaphoric pronoun because transformational grammar is based on sentences. As you know from the previous examples "it" is derived by three kinds of rules. (1, a) is an example of substitution transformation (pronominalization). (1, bc) are examples which "it" is used by structural necessity (extraposed "it" and ambient "it"). (1, d) is generated by the base rule. Traditional gammarians (Jespersen, Zandvoort, Quirk) also holds the same position as the transformational grammarians in that non-anaphoric pronoun "it" is a meaningless element. In this paper I argure that all kinds of "it" has a common thread, because "it" has a referential vague. In other words all kinds of "it" refers to something in the context. Consider the following examples. (2) a. What is this? It is a book. b. I took the book from the table and placed it on the shelf. c. Don't do it. d. How is it going? It goes well. c. It is late. f. It is raining. g. It is not true that Jane is intelligent. (2, a) is the basic use of "it" because "it" is used to refer something in the concrete and visible situation. From my viewpoint all kinds of it is an extended use of (2, a). (2, b) which might be extended from (2, a) is used to refer something invisible that is antecedent. Because of this "it" in (2, b) might be called anaphoric pronoun. "It" in (2, c) is used to refer to an immediate situation, which is also extended from (2, b). "It" in (2, def) refers to general situation presupposed by both a speaker and a bearer which is extended from (2, c). (2, g) refers to abstract general situation which might be called ground of conversation. In conclusion we can say that all kinds of "it" has a common thread on the basis of the previous examples. Ambient "it" and extraposed "it" is not used to fill in the subject position as a meaningless element but has a referential value as a semantic value. Because of this it seemed that it-insertion and extraposition is not optional.