http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Do so and Do it Anaphora Revisited
Hae-Kyung Wee(위혜경) 담화·인지언어학회 2020 담화와 인지 Vol.27 No.1
This study explores the semantic and contextual properties of do so (DS) anaphora and do it (DI) anaphora by surveying the preceding proposals and reanalyzing the data discussed therein and attempts to provide a general principle that can explain the seemingly confusing aspects of the previous analyses. Eventually, this study supports Cornish’s (1992) proposal that DS phrases represent atelic events corresponding to stative or activity verbs among Vendler’s (1967) aspectual types, whereas DI phrases telic events corresponding to achievement or accomplishment verbs. The common features of DS and DI discussed in the previous studies are recapitulated as expressing i) non-stativity, ii) agentivity, iii) anaphoricity, and iv) entertaining new information to be added on. It is shown that the differences are i) that only DS requires a linguistic antecedent and ii) that DS represents atelicity whereas DI telicity. It is argued that when both are possible, what determines telicty is not the antecedent but the speaker, which explains why both DS and DI are sometimes possible. I also attempt to provide explanations, based on the aforementioned properties of DS and DI, regarding some factors for choice of VP anaphora that Miller (2011a or 2011b) found out in his corpus study.
위혜경 ( Hae Kyung Wee ) 한국언어정보학회 2016 언어와 정보 Vol.20 No.1
In this paper I argue that the subject in a Korean kes-cleft construction denotes the discourse referent that stands for the entity that satisfies the description of the cleft clause. This denotation thereby can be understood as a meta-linguistic referent which refers to the linguistic expression for a presupposed entity. In support of this claim, it is shown an anaphoric expression kekes also can be analyzed as a meta-linguistic referent. This analysis can explain why the subject and the predicate of a kes-cleft in Korean allow animacy crash.
위혜경 ( Hae Kyung Wee ) 한국언어정보학회 2015 언어와 정보 Vol.19 No.2
In this study, I attempt to show two points about Korean sluicing. First, the semantic source of the null subject of the copula phrase in Korean sluicing is a null pronoun. This null subject pronoun may refer to either the antecedent indefinite individual or the antecedent event of the preceding clause. Second, depending on the presence/absence of postpositions in the remant wh-phrase, sluicing constructions are classified into two different semantic types: i) an equative clause and ii) a predicational clause.
위혜경 ( Hae Kyung Wee ) 한국언어정보학회 2010 언어와 정보 Vol.14 No.2
This study investigates the semantic and prosodic properties of the so-called contrastive topic. We posit two informational primitives, namely, topical feature [+-T] and focal feature [+-F], from which four different informational categories, i.e., [+T, +F], [+T, -F], [-T, +F], and [-T, -F], are yielded. It is proposed that the informational category of contrastive topic has focal property [+F] as well as topical property [+T]. Based on the semantic approach that regards the function of [+F] as identificational predication and that of [+T] as forming a semantic conditional clause, it is shown that the semantic function of contrastive topic, which is specified as [+T, +F], is the combination of these two functions, i.e., identificational predication in a semantic conditional clause. This is supported by a scrutinized exploration of the prosodic pattern of English contrastive topic. (Dankook University)
위혜경 ( Hae-kyung Wee ) 한국언어정보학회 2016 언어와 정보 Vol.20 No.3
This study attempts to show the differences between an NP remnant and an AP remnant in Korean sluicing constructions: An NP remnant construction is an equative sentence whereas an AP remnant construction is a predicative sentence. It is also argued that the null subjects of the two sluicing constructions are semantically different: The null subject of an NP remnant denotes a meta-linguistic referent whereas that of an AP remnant has a normal linguistic denotation. Based on the syntactic and semantic characteristics of the two constructions, it is claimed that an analysis on an AP remnant cannot be extended to an analysis of an NP remnant, which was attempted in Barros (2014) in support of his claim that sluicing constructions in English is a kind of a (truncated) cleft construction rather than a remnant phrase that has undergone movement-deletion process. (Dankook University)
위혜경 ( Hae Kyung Wee ) 한국언어정보학회 2004 언어와 정보 Vol.8 No.1
This paper investigates the nature of the discourse domain involved with focus sentences. The major theories of focus including Roothian Alternative Semantics are critically reviewed: Alternative Semantics takes a contradictory attitude toward the truth conditional aspect of free focus. The truth conditional differences are treated as a pragmatic inference, while they are captured by the semantic mechanism, that is, the alternative sets generated by focus constructions. In addition, the alternative sets are ad hoc since they are generated only for focus constructions. This paper attempts to show that the alternative sets introduced by foci in the framework of Alternative Semantics are neither necessary nor sufficient for an analysis of focus. It is argued that the domain sets simply provided by the model itself suffices for a proper analysis of focus constructions. (Korea Cyber University)