支配와 그 下位槪念들의 定義에 關한 小考

박승혁 한국언어학회 1989 언어 Vol.14 No.-

지하수 함양분포에 따른 토양-식생곡선 분석

박승혁,정교철 대한지질공학회 2023 대한지질공학회 학술발표회논문집 Vol.2023 No.1

英語의 擴大 投射 原理 效果

朴勝赫 이화여자대학교 한국문화연구원 1994 韓國文化硏究院 論叢 Vol.65 No.1-2

According to Chomskys(1993) minimalist theory, the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) in English is not an independent principle any more, but derived from other deeper principles (or certain language-particular parameters) of the grammar. Chomsky (1993) claims that the requirement that clauses have subjects in English can be explained by assuming that the DP feature of the functional head T is strong in English. Since strong features become illegitimate objects at PF if they are not checked off prior to Spell-out, the subject DP must move out of its containing VP into the checking domain of T, where its features are checked by T. As a result of this checking operation, the strong DP feature of T is discharged and hence eliminated for convergence at PF; otherwise, the derivation crashes. In order to make his account of the EPP effect in English work, Chomsky (1993) assumes, among others : (i) T adjoins to Ages pre-Spell-out, and that (ii) the subject DP moves into the checking domain of T before Spell-out. These assumptions, however, do not seem to stand on solid grounds when we take Chomskys (1993) Principle of Greed into consideration. The purpose of this paper is thus to show that the account of the EPP effect in English presented by Chomsky (1993) within the framework of his minimalist theory is untenable in light of the concept Greed, which plays an important role in the minimalist theory, and to provide a condition on the application of Greed so that the EPP effect in English can be accounted for in a more plausible way. We specifically raise the following questions: (ⅰ) Why does T adjoin to AgrS pre-Spell-out? (ⅱ) Where does the subject DP move to? and (ⅲ) Why does the subject DP move before Spell-out? Questions (ⅰ) and (ⅱ) are solved if we adopt Chomskys (1994) suggestions that agreement can be assigned without Case. According to this suggestion, the functional head T need not adjoin to AgrS to begin with since it can check the Case feature of the DP in its specifier position without movement to AgrS; hence the problem in (ⅰ) disappears in toto. Furthermore, if the specifier position of TP exists, as suggested in Chomsky (1994) (unlike in Chomsky (1993)), and the head T can check the Case feature of the element in [Spec, TP], the subject DP need not move into [Spec, AgrSP] but into [Spec, TP] for its Case feature checking. Question (ⅲ) is one of the most serious problem in Chomskys (1993; 1994) minimalist system and hence the core of the discussions in this paper. Chomsky (1994) assumes that Greed holds in the strong form : Move raises α to a position β only if morphological properties of α itself would not otherwise be satisfied in the derivation. However, this strong Greed does not motivate the movement of the subject DP is not strong but that of the functional head T is. Therefore, the movement of the subject DP itself but to the strong nature of the DP feature of T. In an effort to provide a plausible answer to the questions in (ⅲ) , we in this respect propose the following condition on the application of Greed : Move α for the checking of the morphological features of α by β may apply without regard for Procrastinate if it satisfies the morphological requirements of β at a given point in the derivation. As a consequence of the proposal, VP-internal subjects can now move to [Spec, TP] pre-Spell-out and their Case feature is checked by T, which on its part can discharge its strong feature. This checked strong feature of T can now be stripped away by Spell-out; hence the derivation converges. The same explanation holds good for the case of the exceptional Case marking construction, where the embedded infinitival complement clause shows the same EPP effect as in ordinary tensed clauses, if we adopt Lasniks (1993) assumption that the DP feature of the infinitival T is also strong.

강우-지하수위 상관성 분석을 통한 사질토층의 수리전도도 산정

박승혁,손두기,정교철 대한지질공학회 2019 지질공학 Vol.29 No.3

Surface permeability and shallow geological structures play significant roles in shaping the groundwater recharge of shallow aquifers. Surface permeability can be characterized by two concepts, intrinsic permeability and hydraulic conductivity, with the latter obtained from previous near-surface geological investigations. Here we propose a hydraulic equation via the cross-correlation analysis of the rainfallgroundwater levels using a regression equation that is based on the cross-correlation between the grain size distribution curve for unconsolidated sediments and the rainfall-groundwater levels measured in the Gyeongju area, Korea, and discuss its application by comparing these results to field-based aquifer test results. The maximum cross-correlation equation between the hydraulic conductivity derived from Zunker’s observation equation in a sandy alluvial aquifer and the rainfall-groundwater levels increases as a natural logarithmic function with high correlation coefficients (0.95). A 2.83% difference between the field-based aquifer test and root mean square error is observed when this regression equation is applied to the other observation wells. Therefore, rainfall-groundwater level monitoring data as well as aquifer test are very useful in estimating hydraulic conductivity. 얕은 대수층에서 매우 복잡한 함양과정을 거치는 지하수의 함양은 지표와 지하매질의 투수성에 의해 상당한 영향을 받는다. 투수성은 고유투수계수(intrinsic permeability)와 수리전도도(hydraulic conductivity) 의 두 가지 개념으로 설명되며 이중 지표매질의 특성만으로 수리전도도를 구하려는 많은 연구가 이루어졌다. 본 연구에서는 경주지역 지하수기초조사에서 수행된 미고결퇴적물의 입도분포곡선과 강우-지하수위 교차상관분석을 토대로 회귀식을 사용하여 강우-지하수위 교차상관분석을 통한 수리전도도 산정식을 제안하고 실제현장에서 수행한 대수성 시험결과와 비교하여 그 적용성을 검토하였다. 그 결과 사질토 기반 충적층대수층에서 Zunker의 경험식에서 산정된 수리전도도와 강우-지하수위 최대 교차상관계수의 상관식이 자연로그형태로증가하면서 결정계수 0.95 이상으로 매우 큰 상관성을 나타내었고 이 회귀식을 다른 관측공에 적용한 결과 실제 현장에서 수행한 대수성시험결과와 평균제곱근오차가 2.83%로 나타나 강우-지하수위 모니터링 자료만으로 매우 신뢰할 만한 수리전도도를 추정할 수 있었다.

탐침과 목표

박승혁 신영어영문학회 2001 신영어영문학 Vol.19 No.-

In his derivation of constructions which involve the expletive there, Chomsky (2000) suggests that the sole φ-feature of there, [person-], play the role of probe P in establishing agreement relation between there and T, assuming that pure Merge may not directly induce Agree. It is argued in this paper that this suggestion might cause some undersirable consequences. Aside from its peculiarity of the view that the φ-feature(s) of the same functional category like T can assume the roles both of P and of G in a given derivation, it seems to raise some complexity problem for computation. In order to solve this complexity problem, we present an alternative, adopting Chomsky's (1995b) proposal that arguments must satisfy the Chain Condition nontrivially. According to our alternative, expletives like there (and it), which are nonarguments, need not satisfy the Chain Condition at all, so that they participate in the establishment of Agree at the point of their first Merge. To maintain and generalize the complementarity thesis of θ-theory (pure Merge) and checking theory (Agree), we are led to adopt Lasnik's (1999a) assumption that there is overt object raising in English.

Man과 He : 영어의 성차별

박승혁 이화여자대학교 한국여성연구원 2009 여성학논집 Vol.26 No.2

Despite the collapse of the grammatical gender system, English has maintained its sexist orientation in lexical and grammatical components. Of those sexist lexical items, the representative cases are the so-called ‘generic’ man(kind) and ‘generic’ or ‘gender-neutral’ third person singular pronoun he (him, his). The purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to examine how these ‘sexist’ words have had their ‘generic’ meaning in the history of English and (2) to look for a realistic alternative to the sexism-oriented pronoun he. The ‘gender-neutral’ pronoun he and the ‘generic’ man, including such man-compound terms as policeman and chairman, apparently express sexual bias in the language, placing women at a distinct disadvantage. Those terms are denigrating since they exclude women and allude to dependency and domesticity; they should thus be avoided in everyday use, if possible. As non-native speakers of English, Koreans are advised to avoid using those sexist expressions and be especially careful in choosing textbooks and teaching grammar. 인구어족(Indo-European)에 속하는 영어도 과거에는 다른 인구어족의 언어들과 마찬가지로 모든 명사들이 문법성(grammatical gender)을 가지고 있었으나 그 발달과정에서 굴절어미의 상실과 더불어 성체계가 무너졌다. 현대영어에는 문법범주로서의 성개념은 완전히 사라지고 3인칭 단수 대명사에만 남성(he), 여성(she) 및 중성(it)의 형태적 구별이 이루어지고 있을 뿐이다. 이러한 문법적 성개념의 붕괴에도 불구하고 오늘날의 영어에 여전히 성차별적 요소가 많이 잔존하고 있다. 그 대표적인 예가 통성적, 성중립적으로 쓰이는 명사 man(kind)과 총칭적으로 쓰이는 3인칭 단수 남성대명사 he이다. 영어의 man은 본래 남녀성을 포함하는 ‘인간ㆍ인류’를 의미했으나 15세기경부터 ‘남성’이라는 뜻이 첨가되면서 이중적 의미를 갖게 되었다. 따라서 man을 통성적 의미로 사용하는 것은 은연중에 인간 = 남성이라는 성차별적 의식을 고착화시킬 가능성을 배제할 수 없다. 또한 everyone, anyone, someone 등의 부정대명사와 person, student, doctor 등과 같은 성중립적 명사를 지칭할 때 남성대명사 he의 사용을 요구하는 전통문법의 일치(agreement) 규칙은 합리적 근거가 없는 것으로 보인다. 이 논문에서는 페미니스트(feminist)들이 영어의 대표적인 남성우월주의적 어휘 항목으로 지적하는 총칭(總稱 generic)명사 man과 총칭대명사 he(him/his)에 대해 성경(Bible) 등의 용례를 중심으로 살펴보고 그 어휘 항목들의 역사적 변화 과정을 정리해 보고자 한다. 이러한 정리는 영어의 성차별적 표현에 대한 언중(言衆)의 의식을 살피고 앞으로의 언어생활에 대한 방향을 시사(示唆)할 것이며, 영어를 외국어로 교육하고 학습하는 우리에게 유용한 정보를 제공할 수 있을 것으로 판단된다.

屈折素 分解 假說과 障壁 槪念의 定義

朴勝赫 이화여자대학교 한국문화연구원 1993 韓國文化硏究院 論叢 Vol.62 No.1

The split INFL hypothesis has been exercising a great influence on current studies of syntactic phenomena in various languages ever since it was first proposed by Pollock (1989). The curx of the hypothesis is that the functional head INFL must split up into two new functional heads, T(ense) and Agr(eement). It is assumed by Pollock(1989) that the two newly-created functional heads have their own projections, and in consequence, the maximal projection of the functional head I, i.e., IP, must now split up into two new maximal projections, i.e., TP and AgrP. If we accept the split INFL hypothesis, therefore, it means that the number of logically possible barriers increases since maximal projections are potential barriers in the sense of Chomsky(1986). The purpose of this paper is to see if the standard definition of the notion of barrier suggested by Chomsky (1986) can successfully handle the phenomenon of head movement on the fine structure of canonical clause entailed from the split INFL hypothesis. It turns out not to be true that Chomskys (1986) original formulation of the notion of barrier can treat head movement on the structure assumed in the split INFL hypothesis. We suggest that various notions and assumptions used for the definition of barrier in Chomsky (1986) be modified in order for the definition to deal with the phenomenon of head movement on the new structure. Our discussion in this paper boils down to the following: (ⅰ) The notion of lexical category used in the definition of barrier must be defined in such a way that lexical categories are those non-affixal elements which have the value of [+/-N, +/-V] features and phonetic matrices as well. As a consequence, such auxiliary verbs as aspectuals must be included in the set of lexical categories. (ⅱ) The notion of L-marking must be defined without reference to the notion of -marking since it would be very difficult to maintain that functional categories like T, Neg, and Agr -mark complements if we accept the standard notion of -marking. If we were to assume -marking as a necessary condition for L-marking every functional head should -mark its complement since otherwise the maximal projection of the head of that complement category would become a barrier. In this respect, we claim that -marking should not be a necessary condition for L-marking. (ⅲ) A lexical category can L-mark wherever it occurs. In other words, a moved lexical category α may maintain its L-marking properties even when it has already L-marked its rightful complement in its pre-movement position. In this case, the value of L-marking may not change even if the L-marking head has moved to a higher position. This phenomenon is analogous to that of γ-marking suggested by Lasnik and Saito (1984; 1992). (ⅳ) The notion of minimality barrier as formulated by Chomsky (1986) may not apply to the fine structure assumed in the split INFL hypothesis. If it were possible for intermediate projections to function as minimality barriers as in Chomskys rigid minimality framework, it would be impossible to present any correct account of the phenomenon of head movement since there would appear various intermediate projections of functional categories. We therefore abandon Chomskys rigid minimality and adopt Rizzis (1990) relativized minimality instead. In accordance with the latter theory, we do not accept the barrierhood of intermediate projections but rather the obstaclehood of their head with respect to head movement. The problem with Neg can be solved if we adopt Pollocks (1989) assumption that Neg is intrinsically inert for government and that heads intrinsically inert for government do not count as potential intervening head governors for the minimality principle. The main results of the present research above have been derived chiefly from the interaction between barriers theory and head movement. Some modifications to the results might be needed if such movement phenomena as NP-movement, wh-movement, and quantifier movement are taken into consideration. We reserve this for future research.

中間 痕迹 考察

박승혁 이화여자대학교 부설 한국문화연구원 1992 韓國文化硏究院 論叢 Vol.60 No.1

The existence of intermediate traces (especially of A´-intermediate traces) is not entirely obvious even though they have played a non-trivial role in the development of Government and Binding Theory. The Subjacency Condition, which is assumed to be one of the principles of UG, does not seem to make the establishment of intermediate traces unavoidable, if the condition is viewed as a condition on movement rather than on representation. A similar conclusion may be drawn from the consideration of the Empty Category Principle, which has also been assumed to be one of the principles of UG. Nonetheless, the intermediate trace (even of arguments) that participates in establishing a chain connection between an operator and a variable can be represented at LF if we adopt Rizzis(1990) approach. Intermediate traces are like initial traces, which are required by modules like the Projection Principle, in that they have no phonological matrix. Unlike initial traces, however, they are invisible to such rules and principles as wanna-contraction, the (Extended) Projection Principle, etc. Wh-intermediate traces appears in A´-position, which is a θ´-position to which no Case is assigned, so that they do not affect semantic interpretation of a sentence. Summarizing their grammatical properties, we can conclude that they are subject to the ECP just like initial traces and that they must have a neutralized feature complex[-WH, -pred] without regard to the feature complex of their antecedent. Hence they cannot appear in the Spec position of a verb that require a [+WH] complementizer. They can license Agr for a null complementizer through A´-agreement so that the null complementizer may properly head govern the element that satisfies the structural condition on government.

Chomsky의 “언어”와 “문법”

박승혁 신영어영문학회 2000 신영어영문학회 학술발표회 자료집 Vol.2000 No.1

機能範疇 Agr의 發生과 消滅

朴勝赫 영남영어영문학회 1996 영남저널 Vol.7 No.-

In Chomsky (1981), the functional category INFL consists of inflectional features, which are of two kinds: tense features and agreement features, where the latter are assumed to be constituted of number, person and gender, the so-called Φ-features. The agreement features, simply represented as Agr, are contextually related to the subject NP as well as to the verb by some rule of agreement. The agreement relationship between Agr and the subject was expressed by cosuperscripting, a kind of coindexing. Chomsky (1981) further assumes that Agr plays some role in Case theory, especially in nominative Case assignment. Nonetheless, the central function of Agr in Chomsky's (1981) Government and Binding theory can be found in its role in the determination of the governing category for binding conditions. In this theory, however, Agr simply stands for a feature complex, without its own projections. The credit of elevating Agr to the status of an independent functional category having its own projections should no doubt be attributed to Pollock (1989), who first suggested the split INFL hypothesis. Based on (overt) verb movement, Pollock (1989) claims that INFL must split up into two distinct functional categories: T and Agr. Adopting Pollock's (1989) suggestion, chomsky (1991) further separates Agr into AgrS and AgrO, taking into consideration not only the syntactic (movement-related) aspect of Agr but also its morphological (agreement-related) one. Under Chomsky and Lasnik's (1993) Case checking theory, structural Case in general, including accusative as well as nominative, is simply a manifestation of the [Spec, Agr] relation, with realizations as Case or agreement, depending on language-particular morphology. Adopting Chomsky's (1991) inflectional system and Chomky and Lasnik's (1993) Case theory, Chomsky (1993) unifies Case and agreement under a Spec-head relation so that both features are checked in the same checking domain: nominative Case and subject agreement in the checking domain of T-AgrS complex, and accusative Case and object agreement in the checking domain of V-AgrO complex. Further, it is assumed in Chomsky's (1993) minimalist program that overt V-raising exhibited in languages like French is forced by the strong V-feature of Agr (verbal Φ-features), whereas the extended projection principle (EPP) effect is triggered by the strong NP-feature of T (Case feature). Chomsky (1995a) proposes that agreement and Case be fully dissociated: agreement is assigned without Case, and Case without agreement. This idea is supported by the (overt) movement phenomena in the multiple subject construction (MSC), including transitive expletive constructions (TECs), in languages like Icelandic. In MSCs, nominative Case and subject agreement are assigned (or checked) by the two distinct functional categories T and AgrS, respectively. The importance of Chomsky's (1995a) observation is that Case is no longer dependent on agreement of vice versa. In Chomsky (1993), it was observed that in subject-verb agreement, as in John hits Bill, $quot;$quot;the Φ-features appear in three positions in the course of the derivation: internal to John, internal to hits, and in AgrS... But at PF and LF the Φ-features appear only twice, not three times: in the NP and verb that agree. Agr plays only a mediating role: when it has performed its function, it disappears.$quot;$quot; In the respect, Chomsky (1995b) assumes that Agr lacks Φ-features. Furthermore, Agr lacks an independent Case-assigning feature since this feature is not provided by Agr but by the V or T that adjoins to it. Such being the case, we can assume that Agr has no inherent feature whatsoever of its own. If this assumption is correct, there is no strong motivation for the postulation of Agr as an independent functional category that has its own projections. If Agr indeed lacks Φ-features, we can account for the presumed role of Agr in such a way that the Φ-features of a predicate Pred (verb or adjective) are added to Pred (optionally) as it is selected from the lexicon for the numeration N. By the same token, the apparent role of Agr in such syntactic phenomena as overt V-raising and DP-raising in languages like Icelandic can be explained by assuming that nonsubstantive categories other than Agr may have relevant features: overt V-raising is induced by the strong [V-] feature of T, and overt DP-raising by the strong [D-] feature of ν (object raising) or of T (subject raising). Consequently, there is no forceful evidence that Agr should exist. Furthermore, the role of Agr in binding theory has been dispensed with in Chomsky (1986b). The interpretive version of binding theory as suggested by Chomsky (1993) and Chomsky and Lasnik (1993) also does not require it. On minimalist assumptions, then, Agr can be eliminated from UG entirely.