http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
이상근 고려대학교 언어정보연구소 2008 언어정보 Vol.0 No.9
The main goal of this paper is to reveal that non-causative psych-predicates in Korean (as well as English), which were once assumed to be simple, are in fact complicated, and that two types of non-causative psych-predicates, [+/-transitive], behave not uniformly in several properties including causativity, relativization, nominalization, and intensionality. I have proposed that the second DP of the [-transitive] type should be interpreted as inducing an abstract affixal postposition, CAUS, indicating causativity, while the second DP of the [+transitive] type be interpreted as indicating intensionality. I suggest this distinction reflects the language-specific conceptualizations of Causal Structure which represents mental experiences.
A Finer-grained Semantic Approach to Events: How to Rescue Pesetsky's (1982) Semantic Selection
이상근 한국생성문법학회 2012 생성문법연구 Vol.22 No.2
Ever since researchers like Pesetsky (1982) reached a conclusion that c-selection is derivable from s-selection, people have simply assumed that the similarity, i.e. VP, in c-selection between the perception verb see and the causative verb make may be reduced to the same semantic property of s-selection which takes the semantic unit of events as complements. However, Odijk (1997) challenges such correspondence viewpoint mainly based on the observation that the perception verb see,unlike the causative verb make, can c-select pronouns (or NPs) as well as VPs as its complements. In this paper, I pursue a finer-grained semantic approach to events, where the perception verb see indeed s-selects for temporally referential events which I define exist before and during the perceiving time while the causative verb make s-selects for temporally non-referential events which do not exist before and during the causing time. In this view, it is the temporally non-referential status of caused events that prohibits a pronoun to take the caused events as legitimate antecedents (cf. Stechow 2001, Moltmann 2004). The finer-grained semantic approach that I adopt in this paper turns out to be in opposition to what Odijk (1997) argued for, rather in favor of what Pesetsky (1982) suggested.