http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 홍성심 ( Sung Shim Hong ) (검색결과 10 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
1-2인칭 재귀사와 3인칭 재귀사의 형태구조적 비대칭성: 문법화의 관점에서
홍성심 ( Sung Shim Hong ) 한국현대언어학회 2015 언어연구 Vol.31 No.1
This paper discusses (i) the morpho-syntactic structure of Reflexives, (ii) the asymmetry between 1st and 2nd person Reflexives versus 3rd person Reflexives on the basis of van Gelderen’s (2008, 2010) analyses within the spirit of Minimalist syntax and feature system. If English Reflexives underwent grammaticalization at different times, as Gelderen has argued, English Reflexives are the result of ‘Person feature split’ in the midst of grammaticalization process which took place in around 1200. The focal point of this paper is to seek out more empirical evidence to account for the correctness of the asymmetrical analysis between 1st-2nd person Reflexives as opposed to 3rd person Reflexives. Based on German and Dutch data (discussed in Rooryck & Wyngaerd 2011, Pica 1987) and English data, it seems that this asymmetry is not unheard of in some languages including Korean. The consequences of this research render insight into feature-based analysis of Lexical Items(LI), supporting the Minimalist Feature approach(Adger 2003, 2006, 2007, Adger & Svenonius 2010) to syntax. Interestingly, Korean Reflexives which lack phi-features in total from the beginning due to their Sino-Korean etymological origins are radically different from the English counterparts. Nonetheless, some otherwise mysterious distributional idiosyncracy of Korean Reflexives can be explained if we adopt the asymmetrical approach of 1st-2nd person Reflexives and 3rd person Reflexives. (Chungnam National Unviersity)
-
홍성심 ( Sung Shim Hong ) 한국현대언어학회 2011 언어연구 Vol.27 No.3
On the basis of what Heidi & Ritter (2002), Adger(2003, 2006, 2007, 2010), Adger & Svenonius (hereafter A&S, 2011) among many others, have proposed within the Minimalist feature systems, I have analyzed some empirical data in English. In so doing, the kind of data that I have discussed in the current paper would render further empirical support for Adger, A&S, which in turn brings in a microscopic perspective on Lexicon. Therefore, NEG, along with its inherent lexicosemantic content of negation, is not only a functional head but also it contains a Second-order feature since it triggers a number of syntactic operations such as Subject-Auxiliary Inversion(SAI), the choice of Tag in sentences with words like ``seldom``, ``scarcely``, the choice of Tag in Transferred Negation (hereafter TN, Quirk, et al 1972, 1985), and Negative Raising (hereafter NR, McCawley 1988) constructions. (Chungnam National University)
-
한진희 ( Jin Hee Han ),홍성심 ( Sung Shim Hong ) 한국현대언어학회 2013 언어연구 Vol.29 No.2
The Journal of Studies in Language 29.2, 345-361. This paper, based on Han (2013), attempts to analyze ``-kes`` in Korean Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Jhang (1994) and argues that Korean ``-kes`` would not be an expletive but a nominal Complementizer. ``-Kes`` in IHRC has been argued to be an expletive (Yoon, 2005). However, the current study provides three arguments against Yoon, within X-bar syntax. First, the parameters of Korean and English assure the consistency when ``-kes`` is on of CP. Secondly, in terms of the configuration of the data, Korean ``-kes`` is a Head so it would not occupy Specifier position of TP, whereas the English expletives are maximal projections so it is positioned at Spec-TP. The last piece of evidence is that the sentence ending with ``-kes`` can be used as a sentence fragment. Likewise, in English, a clause introduced by the complementizer ``if`` can also be used as an answer but a clause (TP) missing the complementizer cannot. In this respect, ``-kes`` occupies the Head position of CP. The theoretical implication of this study, then, is that in Korean there might not be an expletive, unlike what Yoon(2005) has argued for, and that it is best to maintain that Korean ``-kes`` in some of the constructions under investigation is of a category type C with a nominal feature within the Minimalism (Chomsky 1995, Adger 2003). (Chungnam National University)
-
영어의 우측가지 상승구문 : 최소주의적 접근 A Minimalist Approach
홍성심 한국현대언어학회 1999 언어연구 Vol.15 No.2
This paper examines English Right Node Raising (hereafter, RNR) constructions and their LF representations within the framework of Chomsky's (1995) Minimalism. After briefly reviewing the previous studies on RNR, by Boskovic (1997) and Hong (1999a, 1999b), we conclude that English RNR can also be analyzed as an instance of PF Deletion under Identity as well. Hong (1999a)'s argument that the internal structure of English RNR involves only one gap in the first conjunct is assumed, and some empirical data with respect to RNR is examined both at overt syntactic level and Logical Form.
-
홍성심 한국현대언어학회 2001 언어연구 Vol.17 No.1
Lasnik, Depiante, & Stepanov (henceafter, LDS, 2000) discuss what they call the Hybrid Morphological Theory (HMT) of English Verbals. Their theory of English Verbals, a combination of Chomsky's Syntactic Structures (1957) and Chomsky's Minimalism (1995), contains two types of lexical verbal entries in the Lexicon: one is Bare Verbs and the other is Featural Verbs. In LDS's HMT, Infl can be either affixal or featural, and verbs can be either bare or inflected. When bare verbs encounter affixal Infl, the Linear Adjacency must be applicable to guarantee do-support. In this paper, LDS's HMT is critically reviewed, and the empirical difficulties that the HMT approach faces are a lot more severe than LDS claim to be. In conjunction with ImperativeΦ, we propose another null affix, Focus Φ in order to explain the distribution of so called emphatic 'do'.
-
홍성심 대한언어학회 2000 언어학 Vol.8 No.3
Hong, Sungshim. 2000. English Small Clause As Subject and Number Mismatch. Journal of the Linguistic Association of Korea, 8(3), 219-240. This paper discusses an interesting array of English examples that display Subject-Verb mismatch. Subject-Verb Agreement is undoubtedly the single most prominent agreement in the syntax of English. Yet, there are some interesting instances where this agreement is not observed. For example, Quirk, et.al (1972), Safir (1983), and Baltin (1998) have discussed this particular phenomena. Safir's analysis is more or less syntactic in that subject-verb mismatch is attributed to the fact that the small clause used as subject of the finite sentence is in fact a clause rather than DP/NP. Baltin's analysis, on the other hand, is semantic since he observes some examples in which the most typical plural DP/NP takes a singular verb. I examine this type number mismatch found in the small clauses which are used as a superficial subject of a finite sentence, drawing a conclusion that the subject-verb number agreement may remain purely syntactic. From that conclusion, my analysis renders support neither to Baltin (1998) nor to Safir (1983). (Chunnam National University)
-
-
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
