心理言語學과 變形生成文法間의 關係에 對한 硏究

閔春植 한국강원영어영문학회 1983 영어영문학 Vol.- No.4

Probably the most useful summary of the 1965 version of Chomsky's theory is in terms of the similarities and differences between it and the 1957 varsion. One of the most obvious differences is the change from the earlier emphasis on a division between 'kernel' sentences, defined as those which require only obligatory transformations, and more complex sentences, which are formed by optional transformations operating on one or more underlying strings. In the 1965 version more attention is given to the fact that all sentences, which are formed by optional transformations operating on one or more underlying strings. In the 1965 version more attention is given to the fact that all sentences have a deep structure and a surface structure. Further, the transformations which map deep on to surface structures have all become obligatory, since the surface form of the sentence is fully determined by the deep structure, which includes all the constituent strings which will be combined to produce the final sentence. Whereas his earlier work was more closely confined to liguistic implications, in his later writings Chomsky draws philosophical and psychological conclusions from his theory. When trying to sum up the contribution of transformational grammar to psychology, one point that must be stressed is that the psycholinguistic a p proach has opened up totally new ways of conceptualizing language. The applications of transformational grammar, there have been two major developments of interest to psychologists. The first is a proposal that the basic relations in deep structure are not those between subject and object. The second development aims at a more radial revision of transformational theory. A major effect of Chomsky's generative linguistics was to bring to psychologists' attention the crucial importance of linguistic creativity. By demonstrating that the competence of a language user includes the ability to produce a potentially infinite number of possible sentences, Chomsky made psychologists aware that language is a far more complicated kind of behaviour than had hitherto been appreciated.

英獨 文法 形態에 관한 比較硏究

민춘식 한국강원영어영문학회 1995 영어영문학 Vol.- No.14

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the Grammatical Morphology between English and German. In my brief review the interrelations and differences in the two languages will be outlined as follows. 1. German has richer inflectional morphology than English. 2. What we are witnessing in Modern English is the product of considerable syncretism in inflectional morphology relative to Old English. 3. Old English has a morphology very similar to that of German today. 4. Wheras German has preserved its inflectional system largely intact. English has reduced it. 5. German has more plural allomorphs than English : -e, -er, -n, -en. 6. With the exception of the nominative/accusative distinction, the Modern German case system is fully productive along the dimensions nominative/accusative versus genitive versus dative. 7. All the case distinctions that are drawn in English inflectional morphology are drawn in German as well, though the converse fails. 8. The number of grammatical distinctions (case, past/present tense, indicative/subjuntive, etc.) made within the inflectional morphology of Modem German is almost exactly as it was in Old High German. 9. The range of meanings covered by English grammatical form classes is larger than in German. 10. German regularly forces a semantic distinction within a lexical field where English uses an undifferentiated and broader term. 11. English relies more on pragmatic and contextual cues than does German in specifying the exact interpretation of its linguistic forms. 12. German predicates impose tighter selectional restrictions an their arguments than English o. 13. English grammatical relations, by contrast, considerably more semantically diverse, than does German. 14. In English, such differences in selectional restrictions are more often expressed by changing the lexical stem itself. 15. There is much more vagueness in English lexemes that impose minimal selectional restriction requirements. 16. The use of prefixes has become much less productive in the history of English (Old English was very similar to German in this respect)

英獨 Verb First Structure에 關한 比較硏究

閔春植 尙志大學校 1993 論文集 Vol.14 No.-

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and describe the similar properties and differences in English and German by contrasting Yes-No Questions, Imperatives, Exclamations, and Counterfactual and Conditional Clauses. 1. As with verb-second, German verb-first movements are defined on the tensed verval element, V tensed, whereas English verb-first rules move only auxiliaries and produce non-auxiliary. 2. When stressed in English, the underlying you may occur in surface. 3. Imperatives in German assume one of three forms depending on the nature of the addressee. 4. German imperatives undergo both movement and deletion, English imperatives deletion only in general. 5. Exclamations in English appear at first sight to involve the same Subject auxiliary Inversion rule as Yes-No Question. 6. The fronting of models in German is more productive than in English. 7.German verb-first is also fully productive in conditional clauses, in contrast to English. 8. Modern colloquial German also exhibits a verb-first pattern in dramatic narrative style. 9. Topicalization also blocks in exclamations and in counterfactual and conditional clauses. 10. As for the compatibility with topicalizing rules, the fronting of an initial constituent before the verb in a verb-first' structure is more productive in German than in English. 11. In German imperative constructions the verb must be moved to initial position. prior to deletion of an underlying unstressed'du or Ihr' 12. German imperatives are sometimes incompatible with topicalizing rules and sometimes not. 13. In counterfactal and conditional clauses Topicalization in German is completely impossible. 14. Imperative structures in English are verb-first in surface only, as a result of deletion rather than movement. 15. German identified V tensed, exactly as in verb-second structures, whereas English employs at least partially different rules for each verb-first environment.

心理言語學의 發展과 樣相에 關한 硏究

민춘식 明知大學校 人文大學 英語英文學科 1986 Veritas Vol.- No.5

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STRUCTURALISM AND TRANSFORMATIONAL GENERATIVE LINGUISTICS

閔春植 尙志大學校 1983 論文集 Vol.4 No.-

英語에 있어서 借用語에 關한 硏究

閔春植 尙志大學校 1984 論文集 Vol.5 No.-

英獨 Verb Second Structure에 關한 比較硏究

閔春植 尙志大學校 1989 論文集 Vol.10 No.-

The purpose of this paper is to compare the verb second structures of English and German in the light of a close relationship between the two languages. My study has come to the following conclusions : 1. German has grammatical verb second sentences corresponding to the ungrammatical English sentences. 2. Non-auxiliary finite verbs in German can occupy the second position in addition to ausiliaries, where in English they can not. 3. Subject-Auxiliary Inversion has the same general properties as the German Verb Second rule. 4. Unlike Subject-Auxikiary Inversion, Subject-Simple Verb Inversion does not invert an auxiliary. 5. German verb-second applies in envioronments in which the corresponding English sentences are ungrammatical. 6. English has verb-third structures coresponding to the verb-second structures of German. 7. Sentences with preposed sentence adverbs are verb third in English, verb-second in German. 8. The literal translation of the German is ungrammatical in English both as a verb second and as a verb-third structure. 9. The translation of the German is ungrammatical both as a verb-second and as a verb-third Structure in English. 10. German has no restictions on fronting any of these VP-adverbs, and that verb-second structures are always possible. 11. Corresponding to the German with a fronted predicate adjective, English has a verb-third structure.

英獨 Verb First Structure에 關한 比較硏究

閔春植 明知大學校 人文大學 英語英文學科 1994 Veritas Vol.- No.7

모든 언어활동에는 무엇보다도 동사의 역할이 가장 중요할 것으로 생각되어 영독 양 언어의 동사 위치 중 이미 발표한바 있는 Verb second structure를 통해 동계어족이면서 상이한 영독 양 언어의 비교 언어학적인 연구 분석에서 많은 지식을 얻었으므로 이번에는 Verb first structure의 비교를 시도해 보려고 한다. 우선 그 연구대상으로는 양 언어에서 Verb first(V1)에는 통사적이나 의미적으로 구별되는 네 개의 중요한 환경들이 있을 것으로 생각되어 yes no 의문문, 명령문, 감탄문 그리고 사실과 반대되는 조건절을 대상으로 하고자 한다. 특히 독어에는 영어와 같은 환경들을 가지면서도 몇 개의 예외적인 경우를 갖고 있으므로 V2와 마찬가지로 독어의 V1 이동은 시제동사 요소 Vtensed에 관련지어 규명해보기로 한다. 또 영어의 V1 규칙들은 단지 조동사만이 이동되고 표층구조에서 V1은 단지 삭제에 의해 유도된 명령문에서 나타나므로 이들 V2와 V1과의 상관관계를 규명해 봄으로써 동사위치 전반을 통한 영독 양 언어의 비교언어학적인 체계와 이해를 도우는데 그 목적을 두고자 한다.

英獨從文에 關한 比較硏究

閔春植 尙志大學校 1992 論文集 Vol.13 No.-

統辭構造와 樣相에 關한 硏究

閔春植 尙志大學校 1985 論文集 Vol.6 No.-

In my survey of the syntactictic structure to the phrase structure, noun phrase and verb phrase and their impact on the sentences I have found that the most important fact which I have learned during my study of these thesis is that all sentences in English, and for that matter, in every language, have a deep strugture and a surface structure. Now we should see clearly that every English sentence can be discussed in terms of its deep structure and its surface structure. The deep structure tells us what we need to know about the meaning of the sentence. The surface structure tells us what we need to know about how to express the meaning contained in a deep structure. So we should see that both deep and surface structures play a very important role in determining how human beings use language. As I have studied the two major constituents of the deep structure of any English sentence, namely, the noun phrase and the verb phrase, I could find that many of the sentences we speak, write, read, or hear contain other sentences embedded in them and it is this process of embedding that accounts for the fact that every human language consists of an infinite number of sentences. We now know that a sentence embedded inside a noun phrase in the deep structure is transformed into a relative clause in the surface structure. Noun phrase complements play a very important role in our language. Not all of them have the complementizer 'that' in front of their first noun phrase. The complementizer transformation may insert other comple mentizers as well as 'that'. Verb phrase complements have come peculiar properties which we should know about. In the first place, in every verb phrase complement, the subject noun phrase of the complement sentence must be indentical to a noun phrase in the main sentence. Unlike noun phrase complements, verb phrase complements have only one complementizer, the infinitive complementizer, 'for-to.' Both of the manin constituents of a sentence can have a complement. Sentences can be embedded into the noun phrase as noun phrase complements, and into the verb phrase as verb phrase complements. We should remember that every deep structure has one meaning. But, by applying trans-formational rules, one deep structure may become any one of several surface structures. All of the surface structures, of course, will have the same basic meaning because they all come from the same deep structure. In short, deep structures provide us with two very different types of information. First, we can learn from deep structures what the relation ship is among the constituents. In other words, the deep structure tell us what role each constituent plays. Secondly, we can learn the meanings of each of the words that make up constituents.