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 : 김상혁 (검색결과 599 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
Chomsky(1986a)의 결속이론의 문제점과 해결방안
김상혁 청주대학교 대학원 1995 우암논총 Vol.12 No.-
In this article we have critically reviewed Chomsky's(1986a) Binding Theory, revealing some of its inadequacies. We have atso discussed some proposals which may properly account for English binding phenomena that cannot be captured by Chomsky's(1986a) work. There are problems in Chomsky's(1986a) Binding Theory as follows. As for anaphors, it is shown that LF anaphor movement cannot be motivated because it violates the Empty Categcry Principle and Adjunction Principle. With regard to pronominals, the cases of referential circularity and split antecedents are presented as problems in the coindexing system of the Binding Theory. It is argued that the postulation of an implicit argument PRO in the SPEC position of NP comes into disagreement with the PRO-theorem. As to R-expressions, there are cases where the Binding Theory Condition (C) does not apply. The notion of coreference alone Is not sufficient to properly deal with the case of referential dependency. Proposals for the solution of the problems discussed are made to give a better analysis of binding phenomena. With regard to anaphors, the elimination of LF anaphor movement is shown to improve the analysis of binding in a modular way. This also leads to the introduction of the Logophoric Control Principle. With reference to pronominals, we presented the Linking Principle, following Higginbotham´s(1983) proposal . As far as R-expressions are concerned, true operators should be differentiated from quasi-operators in terms of referentiality in the cases of quantifier raising or topicalization. The Avoidance Principle is needed to fully account for the distribution of lexical R-expession.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
-
김상혁 한국교통대학교 2016 한국교통대학교 논문집 Vol.51 No.-
In English, the present and past tenses can be expressed by the forms of the verb. However, the future tense can be expressed by present tense, present progressive tense, future progressive tense, or auxiliary verbs (will, be going to). For each of time, there are three possibilities with most verbs: simple, progressive (be + -ing) and perfect (have + past participle). There is not a direct relationship between verb forms and time. For example, a past verb like went is not only used to talk about past events, but also about unreal or uncertain present or future events in conditional sentences.
-
김상혁 한국중앙영어영문학회 2002 영어영문학연구 Vol.44 No.1
In this article we examine Lasnik`s(1992) and Chomsky`s(1993, 1995) analyses of expletive there constructions. On observing there-sentences in terms of Chomsky`s(1995) Attract-Feature theory, our primary concern is whether the expletive there bears only [D] feature or case feature besides [D] feature. We have illustrated that there is an NP that checks [C] and [D] features but not [ø]-features, since it occupies a case position but lacks Agreement features. If there is inserted in Spec of T before Spell-Out, T will have its strong [D] features checked before Spell-out, resulting in PF legitimacy. The expletive there checks the (nominative or accusative) case features against T and FF(V) adjoined to T. But the case feature of expletive there will be checked at LF because it is a weak feature. An associate NP in there constructions must be raised at LF to adjoin to there, in order to check its [ø]-features against T. The NP is correctly predicted to agree with the verb since the FF(V) raises to T to check its [ø]-features as well. Thus the strong [D] features are checked overtly by there, whereas the weak [ø]-features are checked by LF adjunction o there. If the NP fails to raise, it will bear unchecked features at LF. Thus there will be illegitimate objects at LF and the derivation will crash. But we assume that an associate NP has no case. So it is not the case-checking requirement that forces the postverbal NP to be adjoined to there at LF. The case-checking theory does not demand that every NP bears some case. If an NP bears case, the case feature must be checked in an appropriate position by some functional category which has the same case feature. If an NP doesn`t have case, then the case-checking is irrelevant. In short, we claim that the postverbal NP in there-sentences bears no case.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
