제외 의미의 5가지 'but+전치사' 구조 유형 비교

안병길(Ahn, Byeong-kil),김두식(Doo-Shick Kim) 경희대학교 언어정보연구소 2013 언어연구 Vol.30 No.2

There are a few expressions which mean "exception" in English; among which are 'but' and 'but for.' The but-structures have been analyzed as so-called 'but-cleft' by Kim(2005), where Kim proposed that <X but Y> correlatives are required to satisfy the 3 constraints on their occurrences: the endorsement(E) condition, the semantic condition(S) of 'part-whole'(S) and a structural or functional parallelism(P) condition between X and Y. This study has dual goal: 1) to show that a slightly revised version of the E/S/P-Conditions by Kim's (2005) for <X but Y> construction can be applied for the distinction in use between <X but Y> construction and its alternative form <X but + preposition Y> and 2) to identify five different types of <X but + preposition Y> constructions in terms of the optionality/kinds/grammatical statuses of an occurring preposition, the meanings/grammatical statuses of 'but' and the exclusive uses for the <X but + preposition Y> structures of 'revised' E/S/P-Conditions.

영어 담화기반문법의 한 시도

김두식(Doo Shick Kim) 언어과학회 2013 언어과학연구 Vol.0 No.66

The pedagogical approach to grammar distinguishes between senterce-based grammar and discourse-based grammar and gives priority to the latter. One version of the discourse-based grammar has been suggested by scholars such as Batstone (1994), Carter et al (2000), Close (2002), among others, who claim that the linguistic forms can be chosen depending on contexts where they are uttered. This study, an attempt to implement discourse-based grammar more powerfully, supports the view of grammar as context-based choice by demonstrating that binary oppositions (BO) such as ``part vs. whole``, ``actual vs. non- actual``, etc. can behave as (a source of) crucial context for the choice of grammatical opposite pairs such as ``-ing vs. to`` and grammatical alternative variants such as ``at vs. in (the restaurant)``. This view is also cognitively supported by the suggestion of BO as derived from ``categorization principle``, which does not belong to isomorphistic iconicity, but to motivational one, in the sense of Haiman (1985).

“Contextual Opposition Effect” and the Distinction between confusingly similar pairs of words or phrases

Doo-Shick Kim(김두식) 담화·인지언어학회 2015 담화·인지언어학회 학술대회 발표논문집 Vol.2015 No.10

영어전용강좌를 위한 '학술적 교실강의 영어'의 적절한 용법 연구

김두식(Doo Shick Kim) 언어과학회 2008 언어과학연구 Vol.47 No.-

등차성(gradience) 관점에서 본 영어 분열문의 분석

김두식(Kim, Doo-Shick) 언어과학회 2012 언어과학연구 Vol.62 No.-

Most of the studies on English clefts have been made under the assumption that two types of clefts exist independently and their categories are discrete. Unlike these trends, this study is based on Aarts`s (2007) ``gradience``, assuming that there are blurred boundaries between two categories of linguistic structures and syntactic forms should be analyzed in terms of the continuum of meaning between the core and periphery of the structures. By adopting this assumption, the study has advantages that this approach can explain effectively the phenomena that the opposite approach fails to. The purpose of this study is to show that the gradience perspective allows us to explain the differences of grammaticality by different syntactic categories in focus position of clefts. It demonstrates that the varying degrees of grammaticality lying both within one type of clefts and between two types of clefts are ascribed to accumulated gradiences, including categorial combinations of semantic features like nouniness and verbiness and specification effects on the specificational reading of clefts.

영어문장부사(英語文章副詞)의 제약(制約)과 기준(基準)

金斗植 ( Kim¸ Doo-shick ) 현대영미어문학회 1984 현대영미어문학 Vol.2 No.-

In definition, sentence adverbs can be used to modify a whole sentence or just the predicate of a sentence, while predicate adverbs cannot be used to modify a full sentence. It is not the case that predicate adverbs cannot be used as sentence adverbs. Both of them can be interchanged in semantic or pragmatic function. The concept of ‘modify’ in the above definition should be dealt with on the pragmatic dimension. The present sudy is an attempt to show a variety of constraints on-ly-type sentence adverbs and the criteria for them in terms of speech act theory (or pragmatics). It has been shown in terms of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics that pure sentence adverbs may include just evaluative, modality, epithetic and pragmatic adverbs and exclude frequency, conjunctive and domain adverbs in their list. My proposed criteria for sentence adverbs in terms of pragmatics are as follows: First, sentence adverbs convey the locutionary act as their adjectival paraphrases Itis PRED that... or S is PRED〈□□□. Second, sentence adverbs convey the illocutionary act as conversationary paraphrases (I judge that... or I demonstrate that...). Third, sentence adverbs convey the perlocutionary act as the consequent inducive ef fect on the hearer.

영어 도치문의 정보성에 대한 재고

김두식(Kim Doo-shick) 담화·인지언어학회 1995 담화와 인지 Vol.1 No.-

Discourse Connection and the Choice of This or That

Doo-Shick Kim(김두식) 담화·인지언어학회 2003 담화와 인지 Vol.10 No.3

Many studies of the deictic this/that have focused on a possibility of this/that as one of the extended uses of the proximate-distant distinction or on views that relative information status and relative importance of the referents serve as the primary motivating factors behind the choice of the demonstrative forms, without any distinction between three types of deictic uses. These views are partly correct, but those factors are not crucial ones. This paper, in this context, aims to show that in largely academic written discourse, the proper use of English demonstratives this and that as discourse deixis can be effectively accounted for by introducing such concepts as discourse segments, as in Hinds 1979, Ehrich & Koster 1983, Fox 1987, McCarthy 1994, among others, and rhetorical structures inferred in the two relevant segments, as in Mann & Thompson 1988. In this paper, I suggest that the choice of this/that as discourse deixis depends on the writer's perspective, on the one hand, on the relevant discourse entities and, on the other, on the relationship of the discourse segments that precede and follow this/that. My data showed that writers prefer to use this in case that they evaluate the discourse entity it refers to as 'central' to the flow of discourse and that in case that they evaluate the discourse entity it refers to as 'peripheral' to the flow of discourse. My data also showed that writers prefer this in case that they evaluate the logical/rhetorical relation as 'canonical' (e.g., progressive, gradual) as to the flow of discourse and that in case that they evaluate the logical/rhetorical relation as 'non-canonical' (e.g., regressive, rapid) as to the flow of discourse.

확정성과 영어한정사의 결합제약

김두식 ( Kim Doo-shick ) 현대영미어문학회 1987 현대영미어문학 Vol.5 No.-

The purpose of the present study is to define English determiners in terms of definiteness, to divide them into three classes, and to propose three combinational restrictions on them between the three classes. It is here claimed that English determiners should be classified in terms of (in) definiteness as well as their distribution in prenominal modification. The basic meaning of definiteness, proper to the definite determiners, consists of LOCATION and INCLUSIVENESS, as is claimed in Hawkins (1978). It means that the definite determiners are used to “locate” the referent of the definite NP within one (set) of the objects properly pragmatically defined and refer “inclusively” to the totality of the objects. On the other hand, the core meaning of indefiniteness is in contrast with definiteness in having EXCLUSIVENESS property. It means that the indefinite determiners are used to refer “exclusively” to not-all, i.e. there are claimed to exist other objects excluded from the reference of an indefinite NP. According to (in)definiteness and their modificational distribution, the determiners are classified into Class I, Class II, and Class III. On the basis of their ability to precede or follow Class II, the most central of the determiners, Class I is termed Predeterminer Class, such as all, both, half and the like and Class III is termed postdeterminer Class, such as two, first, many, (a) few, such, (an)other, etc. Class II is divided into Class II I, such as the, my, this and so forth, Class II-2, such as some, most, every, each, (n)either, which and so on. The three combinational restrictions proposed in this study are as follows: Restriction I: The combinational order of English determiners should be the one like (Class I ― Class II ― Class III) but the determiners in Class I should be combined with those in Class II-1. Restriction II: The determiners in the same class, except for Class III, should not be combined one another. Restriction III: The combination in the order like (Class IT2 or III ― Class II-1) is impossible by violating Restriction I & II, but is possible by inserting of between the former class and the latter one.

박사학위논문의 ‘감사의 글’에 나타난 원어민과 비원어민(한국인) 텍스트 비교분석

안병길(Ahn, Byeongkil),김두식(Doo-Shick Kim),조은정(Eunjung Cho) 언어과학회 2017 언어과학연구 Vol.0 No.80

Though acknowledgements have been neglected in writing dissertations by Korean master and doctoral students, they are obligatory by native speakers. The purpose of this study was to investigate a contrastive study of doctoral dissertation acknowledgements by English native speakers, non-native speakers (Korean) who studied in USA and non-native speakers(Korean) who studied in Korea. To this end, the same number of acknowledgements were selected. The model used in this study was Hyland(2004) model. The results showed that there are some significant differences in the length of the text, rhetorical moves, frequency of occurrence, individuals acknowledged, etc. More important was to find a new move which native speakers do not use in acknowledgements from Korean writers.