영작문에 나타나는 한국어와 영어 의미 차이

김상혁 한국교통대학교 2017 한국교통대학교 논문집 Vol.52 No.-

This article is concerned about the awkward or confusing expressions that occur when Korean students speak or compose English as a means of communication. Awkward or confusing expressions occur when speakers do not convey what they want to and when they express something different from what they want to. And Korean students sometimes use some words and phrases differently from what native English speakers use by the same words or phrases. For example, Korean students use the word, enjoy, differently from the standard English meaning. In English they use enjoy to mean ‘to experience joy and pleasure in something’. But some Korean students use enjoy only to convey ‘to participate in a certain entertaining activity like playing cards’. But there is a big difference between ‘to experience joy and pleasure in something’ and ‘to participate in a certain entertaining activity like playing cards’. And some Korean students use at that time as a meaning of then. But in English they do not use the phrase like that. At that time is used to give background information to make clear of some situation or condition at a time it is mentioned in the conversation.

신호분리를 위한 Diplexer에 관한 연구

성정현,김성균,김상혁,김호섭,박준석,안달 호서대학교 반도체제조장비국산화연구센터 2000 학술대회 자료집 Vol.2000 No.1

본 논문에서는 신호의 분리와 합성이 가능한 Diplexer를 제작하였다. 저역 통과 여파기와 고역 통과 여파기의 특성을 정합하여 Diplexer로 구현함으로써 신호의 분리와 합성이 가능하다는 것을 시뮬레이션을 통해 확인하였다. 또한 신호의 분리와 합성의 가능성을 입증하기 위해 실제 마이크로스트립구조의 Diplexer를 제작, 측정한 결과 각각의 통과 대역폭 내에서 0.4dB, 0.8dB이내의 삽입손실과 -20dB의 반사손실이 됨을 실험결과를 통해 알수 있었고 또한, 인덕터의 구현 방법을 마이크로스트립으로 하여 주파수 특성과 재현성을 높였다.

영어 공손 표현 : Middle School English 교재를 중심으로

김상혁 韓國交通大學校 2022 한국교통대학교 논문집 Vol.57 No.-

This paper shows how to teach English Politeness Expressions such as yes/no questions, changing tenses, using progressive aspects, softening expressions etc. There are many ways to express one’s opinions and intentions politely. To do this, we can use softening expressions like kind of, a bit, quite, rather etc. The most polite mode for giving friendly suggestions and advice is the questions. So many native English speakers use the form of questions to make polite suggestions. We can make suggestions and statements less directly by using past and future verb forms that suggest ‘distance’ from the immediate present reality. Progressive forms can be used in the same way. The modal verbs would, could, and might also make questions, requests and suggestions less direct. Another way of distancing suggestions from reality is to make them conditional or negative sentences.

中間 痕迹 考察

박승혁 이화여자대학교 부설 한국문화연구원 1992 韓國文化硏究院 論叢 Vol.60 No.1

The existence of intermediate traces (especially of A´-intermediate traces) is not entirely obvious even though they have played a non-trivial role in the development of Government and Binding Theory. The Subjacency Condition, which is assumed to be one of the principles of UG, does not seem to make the establishment of intermediate traces unavoidable, if the condition is viewed as a condition on movement rather than on representation. A similar conclusion may be drawn from the consideration of the Empty Category Principle, which has also been assumed to be one of the principles of UG. Nonetheless, the intermediate trace (even of arguments) that participates in establishing a chain connection between an operator and a variable can be represented at LF if we adopt Rizzis(1990) approach. Intermediate traces are like initial traces, which are required by modules like the Projection Principle, in that they have no phonological matrix. Unlike initial traces, however, they are invisible to such rules and principles as wanna-contraction, the (Extended) Projection Principle, etc. Wh-intermediate traces appears in A´-position, which is a θ´-position to which no Case is assigned, so that they do not affect semantic interpretation of a sentence. Summarizing their grammatical properties, we can conclude that they are subject to the ECP just like initial traces and that they must have a neutralized feature complex[-WH, -pred] without regard to the feature complex of their antecedent. Hence they cannot appear in the Spec position of a verb that require a [+WH] complementizer. They can license Agr for a null complementizer through A´-agreement so that the null complementizer may properly head govern the element that satisfies the structural condition on government.

영어에서의 보어

김상혁 忠州大學校 2010 한국교통대학교 논문집 Vol.45 No.-

There are many kinds of phrases that can be Complements in English. Among them Onions, C. T. (1904, 1969) insisted that Adverbs and Adverb Phrases can't be Complements. But there are many counter examples which show Adverbs or Adverb Phrases are Complements. Therefore I show that Adverbs and Adverb Phrases must be included in the Complement category.

支配 槪念과 X' 構造的 關係 : 格理論을 中心으로

朴勝赫 이화여자대학교 한국문화연구원 1994 韓國文化硏究院 論叢 Vol.64 No.1

The purpose of this paper is to show that Chomskys (1993) attempt at replacing the notion head government with fundamental local X´-theoretic relations has not necessarily been successful, particularly when the Case checking theory of Chomsky (1993) is considered, although his project within the minimalist framework has achieved many desirable results. The notion government, which has been playing a central role in the overall architecture of GB syntax, reveals its own shortcomings, in that the definition of the general concept of government has lost its catch-all character in the grammar, as pointed out by Park(1989). Furthermore, it raises a conceptual problem since it is formulated on the basis of more or less arbitrary geometric relations rather than of such indispensable relations as X´-relations defined on X´-structure. Granted that structural concepts like government carry out a crucial function in syntactic processes and principles, that does not necessarily justify the existence of the notion of government itself as a fundamental grammatical primitive. In other words, if syntactic processes and principles which allegedly make a crucial use of government are accounted for by some core fundamental relations other than government, we have every right to case doubt on the assumption that the notion government is a conceptual necessity in the grammar. In his innovative theory of grammar, commonly called minimalist approach, Chomsky(1993) proposes that head government, one central variation of the more general notion of government, be replaced by the more fundamental notions of X´-theory, namely local X´-theoretic relations to the head of a projection, which seem closer to conceptual necessity. If this move is in the right direction - we believe it is - the concept of head government is now dispensable. The following are the fundamental local X´-theoretic relations that are claimed to substitute for head government : (1) a. core relation : head-complement relation b. elsewhere relation : Spec-head relation Of these two fundamental X´-theoretic relations, Spec-head relation is the one that has a direct bearing on the Case checking theory of Chomsky (1993) (also of Chomsky and Lasnik (1993)). In the Case checking theory, the Case feature of an NP must be checked off by the functional head that also has the relevant Case feature to discharge. The operation of Case checking takes place when an NP bearing a Case feature to be checked off moves - overtly or covertly - into the checking domain of its Case checker. Chomskys (1993) definition of checking domain is based on Spec-head relation, one of the two fundamental X´-relations. It can be pointed out, however, that the checking domain of a head is not always congruent with the Specifier position of that head. In configurations such as the one in (2), where no movement of a Case checking head X has taken place, the checking domain of X is congruent with the Specifier position of X. (2) XP / \ NP X´ / \ X a. checking domain of X (MIN (RD(X))) : {NP} b. NP-X relation : Spec-head relation On the other hand, configurations like (3), where a head Y that has a Case feature to discharge has been adjoined to another head X, which plays a mediating role in the process of Case checking, do not allow congruity between the checking domain of the chain (Yi ,t i ) and the Specifier position. (3) XP / \ NP X´ / \ X YP / \ △ Yi X ·· ti ··· a. checking domain of (Yi, ti) (MIN(RD(Yi, ti)) : {NP} b. NP-(Yi, ti) relation : ? Although the definition of checking domain seems to work precisely as needed, therefore, it does not appear to overcome entirely the same conceptual problem raised by government. That is, it still defines somewhat arbitrary geometric relations when a checking head has moved to adjoin another head with the result that it must be defined with respect to the chain created by the head movement.

屈折素 分解 假說과 障壁 槪念의 定義

朴勝赫 이화여자대학교 한국문화연구원 1993 韓國文化硏究院 論叢 Vol.62 No.1

The split INFL hypothesis has been exercising a great influence on current studies of syntactic phenomena in various languages ever since it was first proposed by Pollock (1989). The curx of the hypothesis is that the functional head INFL must split up into two new functional heads, T(ense) and Agr(eement). It is assumed by Pollock(1989) that the two newly-created functional heads have their own projections, and in consequence, the maximal projection of the functional head I, i.e., IP, must now split up into two new maximal projections, i.e., TP and AgrP. If we accept the split INFL hypothesis, therefore, it means that the number of logically possible barriers increases since maximal projections are potential barriers in the sense of Chomsky(1986). The purpose of this paper is to see if the standard definition of the notion of barrier suggested by Chomsky (1986) can successfully handle the phenomenon of head movement on the fine structure of canonical clause entailed from the split INFL hypothesis. It turns out not to be true that Chomskys (1986) original formulation of the notion of barrier can treat head movement on the structure assumed in the split INFL hypothesis. We suggest that various notions and assumptions used for the definition of barrier in Chomsky (1986) be modified in order for the definition to deal with the phenomenon of head movement on the new structure. Our discussion in this paper boils down to the following: (ⅰ) The notion of lexical category used in the definition of barrier must be defined in such a way that lexical categories are those non-affixal elements which have the value of [+/-N, +/-V] features and phonetic matrices as well. As a consequence, such auxiliary verbs as aspectuals must be included in the set of lexical categories. (ⅱ) The notion of L-marking must be defined without reference to the notion of -marking since it would be very difficult to maintain that functional categories like T, Neg, and Agr -mark complements if we accept the standard notion of -marking. If we were to assume -marking as a necessary condition for L-marking every functional head should -mark its complement since otherwise the maximal projection of the head of that complement category would become a barrier. In this respect, we claim that -marking should not be a necessary condition for L-marking. (ⅲ) A lexical category can L-mark wherever it occurs. In other words, a moved lexical category α may maintain its L-marking properties even when it has already L-marked its rightful complement in its pre-movement position. In this case, the value of L-marking may not change even if the L-marking head has moved to a higher position. This phenomenon is analogous to that of γ-marking suggested by Lasnik and Saito (1984; 1992). (ⅳ) The notion of minimality barrier as formulated by Chomsky (1986) may not apply to the fine structure assumed in the split INFL hypothesis. If it were possible for intermediate projections to function as minimality barriers as in Chomskys rigid minimality framework, it would be impossible to present any correct account of the phenomenon of head movement since there would appear various intermediate projections of functional categories. We therefore abandon Chomskys rigid minimality and adopt Rizzis (1990) relativized minimality instead. In accordance with the latter theory, we do not accept the barrierhood of intermediate projections but rather the obstaclehood of their head with respect to head movement. The problem with Neg can be solved if we adopt Pollocks (1989) assumption that Neg is intrinsically inert for government and that heads intrinsically inert for government do not count as potential intervening head governors for the minimality principle. The main results of the present research above have been derived chiefly from the interaction between barriers theory and head movement. Some modifications to the results might be needed if such movement phenomena as NP-movement, wh-movement, and quantifier movement are taken into consideration. We reserve this for future research.

영어 To-부정사의 용법

김상혁 忠州大學校 2009 한국교통대학교 논문집 Vol.44 No.-

Some be-verbs may be used with a to-infinitive, as in The meeting is to be held tomorrow. At this time the finites of be are used with a to-infinitive to indicate an arrangement either by agreement or as the result of a request or an order. The purpose of this paper is to insist that in this case the verb be be followed by an infinitive or an infinitival phrase as the nominal part of the predicate, not as the adjectival part of it.

先應性, 資質 强度 및 導出의 經濟性

朴勝赫 이화여자대학교 한국문화연구원 1993 韓國文化硏究院 論叢 Vol.63 No.1

The main purpose of this study is twofold: first, to present a reasonable solution to the problem "Why are multiple interrogative sentences like the following only two ways ambiguous?" That is, why is it the case that a third interpretation where the wh-phrase in the lower Comp, i.e., where, has matrix scope must not be allowed? (1) Who wonders where we bought what? The second question for which this paper aims to suggest an adequate analysis is: Why is a sentence of the following type, where no overt wh-movement has taken place in the embedded clause, unacceptable in English, whereas it is allowed in languages like Chinese? (2) *Who wonders we bought what where? Criticizing some previous approaches, Epstein (1992) tires to answer the problems under probe, invoking such general principles as the Economy Principle of Chomsky (1991) and the Earliness Principle of Pesetsky (1989). This analysis of Epsteins operates under the following system: (3) a. Universal Filter: A[+wh] Comp must contain a [+wh] phrase at LF (Lasnik and Saito *1984:1992)). b. Earliness Principle: Satisfy filters as early as possible on the hierarchy of levels (DS>)SS>LF (cf. Pesetsky (1989)). c. Parameter: ±syntactic movement. d. Economy Principle: Satisfy filters and the Earliness Principle, using the fewest possible applications of Affect α (cf. Chomsky (1991), Chomsky (1992)). Although no empirical problems, which might be arising from Epsteins approach, seem to be immediately obvious, this system appears to give rise to some conceptual problems. First, Epsteins claim that implicational universals like those in Chomsky(1986) and Lasnik and Saito (1984; 1992) have been entirely eliminated from his system cannot be defensible since he must also assume the following, which looks very much like an implicational universal: The [+wh] Comp Filter (i.e., (3a) above) can be satisfied in a language L if L has syntactic wh=movement. Second, Epsteins Economy Principle, as it is formulated in (3d), appears to be more or less ad hoc in that it treats filters and the earliness Principle on equal terms, relegating the latter to the status of the former. If one would insist that Epsteins approach be maintained, it might be better to recast (3d) as follow: Satisfy filters as early as possible on the hierarchy of levels (DS>)SS>LF, using the fewest possible applications of Affect α, thus dispensing with the Earliness Principle in the system. Third, for the development of his analysis, Epstein crucially assumes that Subjaceny is irrelevant to LF movement (Huang (1982)), and that the operation Move-α forms a single link of a chain. This assumption forces us to conclude that the chain in (4), for example, must be more economical than the one in (5) even if the two chains are formed at the same level. (4) C1: (whi, ti) (5) C2: (whi, tI, ti) On conceptual grounds, however, his assumption seems rather week in its validity. Note that Epsteins suggestion implies that the derivation in (6), for instance, is favored over that in (7), the consequence of which is rather difficult to accept in that one must choose (7) over (6) if one is to adopt Chomskys (1986) Barriers theory: (6) [s whati did [s you [vp see ti]]] (7) [s whati did [s you [vp ti [vp see ti]]] (Cf. Chomsky (1986)) Lastly, based on some scope phenomena of quantifiers, Epstein also argues "[Economy] entails that Subjaceny does not constrain LF movement." However, Epsteins claim could be maintained only if one would keep intact the dubious assumption mentioned above that the operation Move-α forms a single link of a chain. But Epsteins argument will lose its force if we adopt Chomskys (1991) suggestion that the operation of Move-α is not "Move-α" in its literal sense but rather Form-chain, an operation that forms a full chain in a single step (also see Chomsky and Lasnik (1991) and Chonsky(1992)). In order to overcome these problems arising from Epsteins analysis of the two questions under discussion, we adopt the assumptions in (8), following Chomsky (1991), Chomsky and Lasnik (1992): (8) a. The wh-feature of C(omp) is strong in languages like English. b. Strong features are visible at PF and weak features invisible at PF (or equivalently, wear features are deleted in the PF component but strong features are not). c. Strong features are not legitimate objects at PF; they are not proper componeets of phoneti cmatrices. Therefore, if a strong feature still remains after SPELL-OUT, the derivation crashes. d. The operation of Move-α is viewed as an operation of Form-chain. e. The Principle of Economy of Derivation is assumed: A derivation is economical if there is no shorter derivation yielding the same legitimate objects. The first question with respect to the impossibility of the wide scope reading of where in (1) above can be accounted for by the economic principle (8e) with the help of the Form-chain hypothesis (8d). Assumption (8a), (8b) and (8c) conspiratively give an adequate answer to the second question, i.e., Why is (2) disallowed in English? To conclude, it is our claim that the analysis suggested in this paper provide an adequate account for the two main questions that have been raised concerning the interpretation of some multiple interrogative sentences in which whs-in-situ occur, without having recourse to such unwanted "principles" as the Earliness Principle. This is a welcome consequence, we believe, since the Earliness Principle might be in contradiction to Procrastinate of Chomsky (1992), whose minimalist approach to language study seems rather promising.

천식에서 관련 유전자들 사이의 상호작용과 천식에대한 영향

이준혁,박성우,장안수,박춘식 순천향대학교 의학연구소 2006 Journal of Soonchunhyang Medical Science Vol.12 No.1

..