영어학습의 새 방안

이봉삼 단국대학교 1997 敎授 論文集 Vol.31 No.-

英語의 複合動詞에 관하여

李鳳三 明知大學校 人文大學 英語英文學科 1986 Veritas Vol.- No.5

영어 학습의 새 방안

이봉삼 단국대학교 1997 論文集 Vol.31 No.-

This paper is an attempt to present a new method of learning English for a Korean adult by comparing the sound systems and the grammatical structures of the two languages in order to minmize the problems involved in learning English. The result is as follows: 1. The result of the contrastive analysis of the sound systems of the two languages shows that there are 10 consonants and 6 vowels in English which lack in Korean. Thus, 16 new Korean characters are devised in order to distinquish them from the similar sounds in English. a. Consonants : ◁표삽입▷원문을 참조하세요 b. Vowels : ◁표삽입▷원문을 참조하세요 2. Following the linguistic theory of Chomsky's Minimalist Program", the basic phrase structure of English is comprised of three parts: (1) Specifier, (2) Head, and (3) Supplement. 3. The basic sentence elements are (1) Subject, (2) Inflection, (3) Verb (4) Object, (5) Complement, and (6) Adverbial. The Adjunct is an optional element. 4. The basic sentence patterns are (1) SIV, (2) SIVC, (3) SIVA, (4) SIVO, (5) SIVOO, (6) SIVOC, (7) SIVOA. 5. The 'Infinite Phrase' and the 'Participial Phrase' in the traditional grammar should be considered as clauses, for these structures are the same as clauses because they both have an 'empty category' which is filled by an invisible pronoun PRO.

受動文의 種類 및 使用原因에 관한 硏究

李鳳三 단국대학교 1974 論文集 Vol.8 No.-

英語의 省略에 관하여

李鳳三 檀國大學校英美文化硏究所 1984 英美文化 Vol.3 No.-

There are two types of ellipsis in English: the one dependent on linguistic context and the other on non-linguistic context. The deleted elements in the former are easily recoverable from the grammatical structures, while those in the later are not. The ellipsis dependent on the linguistic context can be classified into six parts: the ellipsis in 1)adverbial clause, 2)relative clause, 3)comparative clause, 4)supplementing clause, 5)appended clause, and 6)coordinate clause, The ellipsis dependent on non-linguistic context can be classified into three parts: the ellipsis in 1)dialogue, 2)formulaic expression, and 3)Block Language. 1. The deleted elements in an adverbial clause are easily recoverable, for they are the same lexical items as in the matrix sentence. When the lexical items in the VP of the adverbial clause are the same as those in the main clause, they are deleted under the deletion rule of DELETION UNDER IDENTITY, However, when the phonological form of the lexical items is a combined form of the two lexical categories, Aux(INFL) and V of the VP in the adverbial clause when the V is not the Empty Category of ‘BE’, the deletion rule does not apply to it. In an infinitive clause, the deletion of the VP is the same as in the finite clause except the ‘to’ which remains after the deletion. The subject of the infinitive is usually PRO, and the Complementizer is ‘for’ which assigns ‘Objective Case’ to the subject of the infinitive with the verb of the matrix sentence. The deletion of COMP usually depends on the subcategorization features of the matrix verb. The deletion involved in the Verbless Clause, sometimes called ‘Small Clause’, is actually the deletion of ‘INFL+V’ when the V is an Empty Category of ‘BE’. To give a full explanation to the deletion in the complicated structure of ‘too-to’ construction, it is necessary to introduce the Empty Category of ‘Operator’ to see the relation between the deleted element and its trace, which is also called ‘Parasitic gap’. In a participial clause, the deletion of ‘INFL+V’, when the V is an Empty category of ‘BE’, is the same as in the infinitive clause. The subordinator can be deleted according to the semantic features of the verb in the matrix sentence. 2. When there is already a Complementizer in COMP, the relative pronoun of ‘wh-phrase’, which is moved into COMP via Wh-Movement, should be deleted to avoid the violation of the MULTIPLY FILLED COMP FILTER; When there is no Complementizer, the deletion of ‘wh-phrase’, sometimes called ‘wh-relative’, is optional as long as it does not violate the EMPTY SUBJECT FILTER. 3. The deletion in the comparative clause is a ‘Wh-Deletion’, for the items compared in the comparative clause is a ‘wh-phrase’ which behaves like ‘that’, thus becoming a variable which can be moved into COMP via Wh-Movement. 4. The deletion in a supplementing clause or an appended clause involves the deletion of the same lexical items as in the preceding matrix sentences via DELETION UNDER INDENTITY. 5. The deletion in coordinate clauses also observes the DELETION UNDER IDENTITY and can be easily recoverable. It follows the general deletion principle that only the constituents or lexical items in the identical Phrase Category can be deleted. 6. Finally, the deletion in dialogue, formulaic expression, and Block Language can not be easily explained in terms of the syntactic description of the grammatical structure alone. In other words, the deleted elements are not easily recoverable through the analysis of the syntactic structure; instead, they can be recoverable only when the Speaker, the Hearer, and the Situation are all considered in connection with the elliped clause, thus requiring both the theory of psycholinguistics and that of socio-linguistics. It is expected that the further study in this field will clarify some of the problems which this paper could not handle or overlooked or inadequately described in the near future.

韓國의 大入豫備考査와 美國의 大入資格 英語問題에 관한 比較硏究

李鳳三 단국대학교 영어영문학회 1979 Athenaeum Vol.- No.2

英語省略에 관한 歷史的 考察

李鳳三 단국대학교 1987 論文集 Vol.21 No.-

This is a part of a historical survey on ellipsis in English from the period of the traditional grammar to the transformational grammar, covering only the views of the traditional grammarians and the structuralists in this paper and leaving those of the transformationalists to be studied later on a separate paper. 1) The Views of the Traditional Grammarians a. Henry Sweet viewed ellipsis as an omission of a necessary element in a sentence and explained the phenomena in terms of pragmatics rather than syntax. b. Otto Jespersen classified all speech activity into three categories in terms of pragmatics: expression, suppression, and impression. He defined ellipsis as a phenomenon of suppression. The suppression is further classified as prosiopesis, the deletion of the front part of a sentence, and aposiopesis, the deletion of the end part of a sentence. This classification is based on syntax rather than pragmatics. c. George O. Curme classified the clause connected with omission into two: the abridged and the elliptical. The elliptical clause is defined as a clause which lacks a necessary element in a clause or a sentence. He seems to try to find out the cause of ellipsis from a historical point of view, thus, summarizing that ellipsis is a result of an effort to minimize human speech activity. d. R. W. Zandvoort tried to explain ellipsis from the semantical point of view, and held the opinion that elliptical sentences are far more natural than full sentences in ordinary speech. For example, the pronouns which can be inferred from the context should be omitted. However, when he tried to explain the omission of subjects and conjunctions, he dealt with them syntactically; thus, there seems to be no consistency in explaining elliptical phenomena as a whole. 2) The Views of the Structuralists a. Leonard Bloomfield seems to try to classify elliptical sentences by their forms only, but the basis of the classification is somewhat ambiguous, for he classified an elliptical sentence as a minor sentence which is not a favorite sentence, a full-sentence. It is not clear what a favorite sentence means in terms of syntax as well as pragmatics. b. C. C. Fries defined a sentence as a single minimum utterance, and further devided it into two: a situation utterance and a response utterance which is further classified into three: (1) oral response, (2) action response with one of a very limited list of oral response, and (3) very brief oral signals of attention. All of these three response utterances belong to elliptical sentences, but Fries did not employ the term ellipsis. It is rather interesting to see the fact that the conditional clause which lacks 'if' and an interrogative sentence are classified as an identical one having the same structure. For example, (1) Should they come tomorrow, it would be difficult to find them. (2) Should they come tomorrow? Fries said that both (1) and (2) have the same structure, but the difference of meaning can be inferred from the intonation. This kind of analysis seems to be a result of an over-emphasis on the surface structure ignoring the deep structure as proposed by the transformationalists. c. Like Fries, Paul Roberts tried to explain syntactic phenomena with surface structures only. Thus, an analysis of a sentence is based on 'usage', an ambiguous criterion. For example, the word 'as' or 'than' is both classified into two categories: preposition and conjunction. He also classified gerund and participle as the same one, ignoring their different syntactic functions in a sentence. In short, both the traditional grammarians and the structuralists tried to explain ellipsis from surface structures in terms of semantics or pragmatics, called 'usage', rather than syntax. Sometimes they tried to explain the elliptical phenomena syntactically, but there seems to be no consistent and systematic explanation. Thus, the appearance of the transformational grammar seems to be inevitable.

영어의 재구성에 관하여

이봉삼 단국대학교 1985 論文集 Vol.19 No.-

Faulkner's views of man's immortality

李鳳三 단국대학 1976 檀苑 Vol.9 No.-

영국 대학입학자격 영어시험문제의 분석

이봉삼 단국대학교 1981 論文集 Vol.15 No.-