RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    Re-identifying Null Arguments with Ellipsis: A Reply to Ahn and Cho (2013)

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A100121033

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    Korean allows the null argument construction and is subject to a big debate on the issue of whether it involves pro or ellipsis. Contra Hoji (1998) and Ahn and Cho (2010; 2012a,b), Park and Bae (2012) propose a hybrid approach that both allows pro and ellipsis, and Park and Oh (2013) advocates the ellipsis approach. Recently Ahn and Cho (2013) argue against these approaches and for the pro approach, by claiming that ellipsis is only possible in generic contexts. In this paper, in line with the ellipsis/hybrid approach, we argue that Ahn and Cho's claim is not sustainable for the following reasons: First, the fact that ellipsis is possible, whether or not it has limited distribution, is indeed a problem for the pro approach. Second, the factual claim that ellipsis is only available in generic contexts is not correct. Finally, the validity of continuation test, which Ahn and Cho provide as a convincing argument for the pro approach, is questionable both theoretically and empirically.
    번역하기

    Korean allows the null argument construction and is subject to a big debate on the issue of whether it involves pro or ellipsis. Contra Hoji (1998) and Ahn and Cho (2010; 2012a,b), Park and Bae (2012) propose a hybrid approach that both allows pro and...

    Korean allows the null argument construction and is subject to a big debate on the issue of whether it involves pro or ellipsis. Contra Hoji (1998) and Ahn and Cho (2010; 2012a,b), Park and Bae (2012) propose a hybrid approach that both allows pro and ellipsis, and Park and Oh (2013) advocates the ellipsis approach. Recently Ahn and Cho (2013) argue against these approaches and for the pro approach, by claiming that ellipsis is only possible in generic contexts. In this paper, in line with the ellipsis/hybrid approach, we argue that Ahn and Cho's claim is not sustainable for the following reasons: First, the fact that ellipsis is possible, whether or not it has limited distribution, is indeed a problem for the pro approach. Second, the factual claim that ellipsis is only available in generic contexts is not correct. Finally, the validity of continuation test, which Ahn and Cho provide as a convincing argument for the pro approach, is questionable both theoretically and empirically.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • Abstract
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. The Outline of the Argumentation
    • 3. Ellipsis is Pervasive
    • 4. Semantic Indeterminacy of Pro/Bare Nominal
    • Abstract
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. The Outline of the Argumentation
    • 3. Ellipsis is Pervasive
    • 4. Semantic Indeterminacy of Pro/Bare Nominal
    • 5. Delving into Speakers' Judgements
    • 6. More Data
    • 7. Concluding Remarks
    • References
    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼