http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
李斗燮 弘益大學校 人文科學硏究所 1996 人文科學 Vol.4 No.-
The English modals have different meanings and uses in different contexts. This makes it difficult to grasp the meaning indicated by a modal and to place a suitable modal for a sentence. The negator not or -nt with which a modal comes negates either the modal or the proposition that the main verb of the sentence states. The result is that the scope of negation changes and the whole meaning of the sentence is influenced. In the paper I have tried to throw some light on the subject of how the meanings and uses of the major modal verbs and idioms vary in negative context. The modals CAN and MAY with negation shows epistemic sense of 'possibility' and deontic sense of 'permission' as in a positive sentence. MUST has the meaning of 'logical necessity' of epistemic modality and the meaning of 'obligation' of deontic modality. Must lacks the negative forms of epistemic modality. CAN and MAY supplies with the missing form and fills the gap. Other auxiliaries and related modals reveal few alterations in negative context.
李斗燮 弘益大學校 人文科學硏究所 1999 人文科學 Vol.7 No.-
<Abstract> The meaning of CAN can be divided into three categories. Each category forms a fuzzy set with a core meaning,'ability','permission', or'possibility'and respective peripheral meanings around it. CAN('ability') is related to CAN('possibility') through the gradient of inherency. The possibility of an action is determined by inherent properties of the subject which include ability or power acquired. CAN('permission') is linked to CAN('possibility') through a gradient of restriction. At ogle end of the gradient, with the least restriction, every thing will be allowed or permitted, while on the other end, at the periphery, it's hardly possible. CAN('possibility') is neutral, and has unmarked meaning with respect to the two gradients of restrictiorl and inherency. There Is no necessary association of 'possibility'with an agentive subject function. BE ABLE TO covers much of the same semantic area as CAN, but it is more formal and subject-oriented than CAN. It can supply the forms which CAN and COIR.D do not have.
이두섭 弘益大學校 人文科學硏究所 2001 人文科學 Vol.9 No.-
Of the various meanings of English modal verbs the most important is 'Possibility' that is carried by CAN, MAY, COULD or MIGHT. 'Possibility', one of the meanings of CAN, is the meaning assigned to the overlapping area between 'Permission' and 'Ability', and has the intermediate and neutral implication of external circumstances, where as 'Permission' and 'Ability' has innate properties or authority as their enabling conditions. Epistemic 'Possibility' of MAY differs from Root CAN('Possibility') in that the former is concerned with the likelihood or factuality while the latter is theoretically concerned with the happening. COULD has two forms of 'Possibility', a past time equivalent of CAN('Possibility') and Hypothetical equivalent of CAN(= 'Possibility'). As to MIGHT five forms of 'Possibility' are available: Epistemic, Past of MAY(Epistemic), Past of MAY(Root), Hypothetical Epistemic and Hypothetical Root.
李斗燮 弘益大學校 1992 弘大論叢 Vol.24 No.1
The English auxiliaries shall and will,when used in subordinate clauses,may differ in their uses from those used in simple sentences. In reported speeches,also,the auxiliaries are likely to show different aspects in their uses. In adverbial clauses of time,condition,or concession,and in relative clauses,shall is expected appear to refer mere futurity,and will to denote volition in second or third person.However,the present English generally prefers the present tense form of main verbs or other auxiliaries.In that-clause,too, shall may be used in all persons,but the present English tends to used will or present tense form instead of shall. When shall is used modally in direct speech it dose not change in form in indirect speech.When shall or will implies the prediction of future in direct speech it will change in most cases into the auxiliary which the person of the reported statement would take in direct speech.
李斗燮 弘益大學校 人文科學硏究所 1994 人文科學 Vol.2 No.-
<Abstract> Even at advanced levels students find the expression of time, in particular that of future time, one of the most difficult areas of English grammar to master. The difficully stems from the absence of clear and systematic description of future reference in contemporary English. In the Present study I have tried to throw some light on such familiar subjects as time reference, tense system, including future tense and major wags of referring to futurity in English. Shall/will + Infinitive construction, the'future tlnse'recognized by few scholars, has dominant role of icdicating futurity, though its modal colorings frequently pervades. Other construction such as Be going to + infinitive, Present Progressive. Simple Present and shall /will + Progressive can express futurity in varying digress, with occasional modal tinges. In the final chapter,'prediction', the central idea of future reference is analysed with the conclusion that it is the basic element of the features of referring futurity.
李斗燮 弘益大學校 1990 弘大論叢 Vol.22 No.1
. Of the various meanings of shall the notion of pecuniary or moral obligation originally expressed in OE and ME became obsolete in ModE but the uses representing other obligation, necessary condition or command either survived in some legal documents or was displaced by other modal forms. But shall denoting regulation, promise, determination has been used in ModE. The so-called prophetic shall remained in a few religious writings but is now rarely used in common literature. Shall expressing pure futurity has mostly been used with the first person and it could also mean readiness of the subject in affirmative and offering attitude in interrogative sentences. Will retained its original sense denoting wish or desire from OE through ME and ModE. Most of its consequent meanings such as those of voluntary action, intention, resolution, readiness, habit, and potentiality have been preserved without alteration until PE. But some cases in which strong volitional meaning was involved were displaced by some other modal forms or verbs.
李斗燮 弘益大學校 1991 弘大論叢 Vol.23 No.1
The English auxiliaries shall and will express any one of teir various meanings when each of these verbs is situated in a sentence with respective subject. The original meaning of shall, obligation, and that of will, volition, are mostly realized by the subject of the sentence as the subject determines who imposes the obligation to whom or by whose volition an action is performed. The describable meaning scope of shall and will is broad. Especially the meaning of future reference and their modal meanings are so frequently overlapped and gradient that they can not easily be classified or divided. In this paper shall and will are treated as modal auxiliaries and their meanings are discussed in terms of several areas of common meanings, chiefly in the cosntructions with third person subject. Shall, in the sentences with third person subject, is used as a "prophetic shall" or to express necessity, rarely in solemn literature. It also means duty in rules or regulations, and resolve, promise, or threat when it reflects the strong intention of the speaker. The interrogative form of shall with third person subject is used only in rhetoric questions or in asking the hearer's intention. Will when used with third person subject makes it possible to describe something objectively. Therefore it is capable of meaning simple futurity as well as the colored future tinged with the speaker's mental attitude. It can also express the willingness, power, capacity, habit, characteristic, or insistence of the speaker.
李斗燮 弘益大學校 人文科學硏究所 1994 人文科學 Vol.1 No.-
<Abstract>It is not easy task to analyze, classify or categorize the modal meanings of the auxiliaries SHALL and WILL because various meanings may appear in different contexts. To grasp these modal meanings, they have, traditionally, tried to list the meanings as in OED or locate the modalities at each stage of historical development. Nowadays such approaches as the basic meaning theory, the componential analysis or speech acts theory are included in the discussion of the modalities. But the semantic approach seems to be more helpful and plausible.The two types of the modality of SHALL and WILL are Root and Epistemic. Root WILL denotes volitional meanings such as 'insistence', 'intention', or 'willingness' on the Part of the speaker according to the level of volition: strong, weak, or intermediate.Epistemic WILL, on the other hand, reflecting the speaker's subjective judgment or attitude, expresses 'predictability' or 'Prediction'. When used in 'prediction', WILL at times has the meaning of referring to futurity.SHALL also has Root and Epistemic types of meaning. The uses of SHALL asking the 'addressee's volition' or granting the speaker's 'promise' or 'favor' belong to the Root.Root SHALL also implies the 'obligation' on the part of the second or third person subject. Epistemic SHALL with the first person subject, like, WILL, can refer to futurity.