RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
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
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      to-부정사절과 원형부정사절의 구분에 대한 역사적 고찰:

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A103523913

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      This article is a historical study on the distinction between to-infinitives and bare infinitives.
      the to-infinitive denotes the futuristic, indirect potential event, while the bare infinitive denotes the direct one. This meaning distinction between the two infinitival constructions has been persistent through the long history of English,
      as argued in Fischer(1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997a, 1997b, 2000). The issue is how and from what this meaning difference is derived. The common account is structural, saying that the to-infinitive has the clausal status such as IP or
      CP with the inflectional element inside, while the bare-infinitive has the small clause structure such as VP. This account assumes that the infinitival marker to is a meaningless grammatical element(INFL). However, it is argued in this article that the infinitival to is a lexical element having its own lexical meanings and that these lexical meanings of the to are the maintenance of its original prepositional characters. In other words, the lexical meanings of the infinitival to, derived from its original prepositional category, has not been wiped out, although the meanings were a little weakened in ME for a while. The conclusion is that the meanings of the to-infinitives such as futurity and indirectness are due to the morpheme to itself, not to the structure caused by its presence.
      번역하기

      This article is a historical study on the distinction between to-infinitives and bare infinitives. the to-infinitive denotes the futuristic, indirect potential event, while the bare infinitive denotes the direct one. This meaning distinction between ...

      This article is a historical study on the distinction between to-infinitives and bare infinitives.
      the to-infinitive denotes the futuristic, indirect potential event, while the bare infinitive denotes the direct one. This meaning distinction between the two infinitival constructions has been persistent through the long history of English,
      as argued in Fischer(1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997a, 1997b, 2000). The issue is how and from what this meaning difference is derived. The common account is structural, saying that the to-infinitive has the clausal status such as IP or
      CP with the inflectional element inside, while the bare-infinitive has the small clause structure such as VP. This account assumes that the infinitival marker to is a meaningless grammatical element(INFL). However, it is argued in this article that the infinitival to is a lexical element having its own lexical meanings and that these lexical meanings of the to are the maintenance of its original prepositional characters. In other words, the lexical meanings of the infinitival to, derived from its original prepositional category, has not been wiped out, although the meanings were a little weakened in ME for a while. The conclusion is that the meanings of the to-infinitives such as futurity and indirectness are due to the morpheme to itself, not to the structure caused by its presence.

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • 1. 머리말
      • 2. to-부정사절과 원형부정사절의 의미와 기능상의 차이
      • 3. 두 부정사절의 의미 차이는 to에서
      • 4. to-부정사와 원형부정사의 형태적 구분에 대한 어원적 고찰
      • 5. 중세영어 이후의 to의 문법화
      • 1. 머리말
      • 2. to-부정사절과 원형부정사절의 의미와 기능상의 차이
      • 3. 두 부정사절의 의미 차이는 to에서
      • 4. to-부정사와 원형부정사의 형태적 구분에 대한 어원적 고찰
      • 5. 중세영어 이후의 to의 문법화
      • 6. 맺는 말: 문법화와 to의 범주
      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