비인칭 구문의 통시적 연구

신성균 강원대학 1993 人文學硏究 Vol.31 No.1

On the Demise of the English Be Perfect Based on Diachronic Bible Versions

신성균 한국중앙영어영문학회 2013 영어영문학연구 Vol.55 No.4

There have been suggested many causes of the decline and demise of the BE perfect. First, language strategy to avoid ambiguity is suggested. Language is first of all an instrument of communication, so if a construction causes ambiguity, an obstacle of communication, then a way of disambiguation is sought. Second, the avoidance of heavy functional load is proposed in that language seeks for economy and to avoid a heavy functional load for a construction like the construction BE followed by a past participle, which can give expression to at least four different syntactic constructions, creating too heavy a functional load. Finally, counterfactuality proposed by McFadden and Alexiadou (205) is suggested as the catalyst for the eventual loss of BE. In the first half of ME, counterfactuals categorically required the auxiliary HAVE on the perfect. This requirement was strong enough even to override the otherwise categorical selection of BE by verbs like come, yielding their first appearances with HAVE. My data (Table I) also shows this in that only 17 cases in King James (1611) and 18 cases in Tyndale (1526) of the BE perfect appear, mainly with the verbs come and go. The final stage of the demise of the BE perfect has come with the road map of PE HAVE perfect (or HAVE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE), at least in conservative English like that of the Bible, as shown in the diachronic study of the Bible versions, is Preterit (Present) (OE), HAVE or BE PERFECT (Present) (ME, EModE), HAVE PERFECT (HAVE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE) (PE).

A Constant Flux of Language Change with regard to English Present Perfect vs. Preterit

신성균 한국중앙영어영문학회 2015 영어영문학연구 Vol.57 No.4

In colloquial or written Present-day English (PE), especially colloquial American English, present perfect and preterit are in free variation. I have considered the relationship between the English present perfect and the preterit diachronically from PE back to Old English (OE) and from OE to PE vice versa. Based on the comparison of the English Bible versions from OE AS (995), ME Wycliffe Bible (1389), EMnE Tyndale Bible (1526), PE NIV (1979), and NLT (2013), I have come to the conclusion that PE, especially American colloquial English is returning to OE concerning the free variation of the present perfect and the preterit. I suggest two reasons why PE, especially the colloquial AmE is returning to OE. Firstly, it is because of the nature of language itself. Language itself changes or repeats itself as shown in the change of examples I discussed. Secondly, it is because of the language change of parameter- resetting. the English language has changed by parameter-resetting. This parameter-resetting repeats itself.

A Diachronic Study of Be Gone

신성균 한국중앙영어영문학회 2014 영어영문학연구 Vol.56 No.3

Since OE through ME, and until EModE, HAVE perfect usually occurs with transitive verbs whereas BE perfect occurs with intransitive verbs (especially, mutative verbs i.e. signifying a change of state or a place and/or verbs of motion). Against the demarcation of the HAVE perfect into two categories, ACTIVITY and UNREALITY by Rydén-Brorström (1987), I suggest that the assumption of the cluster of the syntactic-semantic features, [+BEING], [+STATIVITY] for the BE perfect, the cluster of the opposite syntactic-semantic features, [-BEING], [-STATIVITY], or [+ACTIVITY], [+ITERATION] and [+DURATION] [+UNREALITY] and [+COUNTERFACTUALITY] for the HAVE perfect can explain the BE/HAVE paradigm. Concerning the demise of the BE perfect, counterfactuality proposed by McFadden and Alexiadou (2005) is suggested as the catalyst for the eventual loss of BE. In the first half of ME, counterfactuals categorically required the auxiliary HAVE on the perfect. This requirement was strong enough even to override the otherwise categorical selection of BE by verbs like come, yielding their first appearances with HAVE. My assumption of the feature [±BEING] can explain this. My data (Table I) also shows this in that only 17 cases in King James (1611) and 18 cases in Tyndale (1526) of the BE perfect appear, mainly with the verbs come and go. PE shows a productive use of Be Gone in daily life. One reason for this being that Be Gone has a functional load differently from Be Come, which has no distinctive meaning or function. While he has gone means he is not here, but you may get him easily, but he is gone means separation or farewell, he may not come back again or it is hard to find him. So he is gone may mean in common language he is dead. This kind of functional load prevents contrast loss, so it prevents the loss of the Be Gone. If we use the syntactic-semantic features concerning the pair HAVE Gone vs. Be Gone, HAVE Gone may be featured as [-BEING], [+ACTIVITY] and Be Gone as [+BEING], [+STATIVITY]. HAVE Gone is focused on action or activity whereas Be Gone is focused on stativity or state (that is, being dead or separated). My feature system can also differentiate the demarcation between the pair HAVE Gone vs. Be Gone.

The Origin of Do-Support and Parameter-Resetting

신성균 한국중앙영어영문학회 2010 영어영문학연구 Vol.52 No.2

According to Generative Grammar (recently the Minimalist Program), language change results from resetting of parameters. Likewise, the origin of English do-support can be explained by parameter-resetting mediated by markedness. In the middle of the 16th century, the parameter-resetting from Tense with strong V feature to Tense with weak V feature regarding the origin of periphrastic do began, as the so-called do-support appeared, and resetting was nearly complete by 1700. The resetting from Tense with strong V feature to Tense with weak V feature makes it possible to adopt do-support. As shown in Ellegård(1953:162)’s figure of percentage of do-forms in various types of sentences, when Early Modern English starts, the frequency of do-support is rather low, but is already rising precipitously in negative and interrogative sentences, and continues to rise without much variation throughout the period. The percentage of do-support is always highest in negative questions, followed by affirmative questions, and then by negative declarative sentences. By 1700, the affirmative declarative curve is approaching zero, while the three curves are all above 75 percent and are rising precipitously, with parameter-resetting to Tense with weak V feature from Tense with strong V feature resulting. Between the start of parameter-resetting and the end of it, markedness plays a role in that at the start the do-support forms are rather marked and later grow less marked, and more unmarked, resulting in parameter-resetting.

Neutron Total Cross-section Measurements with the 6Li-ZnS(Ag) Scintillator (BC702) Employing a Neutron and Noise Separation Technique

신성균,계용욱,조무현,Won Namkung,김귀년,이만우,강영록 한국물리학회 2014 THE JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY Vol.64 No.9

The neutron total cross-section of natural Dy has been measured in the energy region from 0.01to 100 eV by using the neutron time-of-flight method at Pohang Neutron Facility, which consistsof an electron linear accelerator, a water-cooled Ta target with a water moderator, and a timeof-flight path with an 11-m length. A 6Li-ZnS(Ag) scintillator with a diameter of 12.5 cm and athickness of 1.5 cm has been used as a neutron detector, and a metallic Dy plate has been used forthe neutron transmission measurement. The background level has been determined by using notchfilters of Co, Ta, and Cd sheets. In order to reduce the gamma rays from bremsstrahlung and fromneutron capture, we have employed a neutron-gamma separation system based on their differentpulse shapes.

Parameter-Resetting and Diachronic Changesof English Negation

신성균 한국중원언어학회 2019 언어학연구 Vol.0 No.51

Old English (OE) Anglo-Saxon Bible (Anglo-Saxon) (A.D. 995) usually uses the negative particle ne in sentence negation, whereas Middle English (ME) Wycliffe Bible (Wycliffe) (A.D. 1389) and Early Modern English (ENE) Tyndale Bible (Tyndale) (A.D. 1526) not as a result of morphological changes. We propose that English negation changes by parameter-resetting from negation (NEG) selection of T(ense) in OE to NEG selection of VP in ME and ENE. The negative particle ne starts as a VP-adverb in OE and later results in NEG head not in Modern English (NE) through ME and ENE, in which the negative particle not is still a VP-adverb. As NE not becomes a negative head, optional do-support, which is common in ENE, becomes obligatory as in NE with the concurrent change of T. Another difference between ENE and NE concerning T is that T carries a strong affix with a V-feature in ENE, but, a weak (-strong) affix in NE, resulting in parameter-resetting from T[+strong] to T[-strong]. Therefore, the diachronic changes of English negation show syntactic changes by parameter-resetting as well as morphological changes.

유포성과 영어의 공주어 매개변수의 변수가 전환

신성균 강원대학 1990 人文學硏究 Vol.28 No.1

Ballanced Approach to English Grammer

신성균 강원대학 1985 人文學硏究 Vol.21 No.1

Variation and Regeulation in Early Modern English(1500­1700)

신성균 강원대학 1986 人文學硏究 Vol.23 No.1