Syntactic Patterns Related to the Constructive Use of Korean michin and English crazy
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper explains why Korean michin occurs with (abstract) inanimate nouns to produce positivity while English crazy is productive not with inanimate nouns but with another positive adjective or the preposition about for positivity. In doing so, we focused on the fact that inanimacy serves as the basic concept that can bring about semantic incongruity for the adjectives’s extension to the opposite realm since being crazy usually refers to mental states of animate beings. In this regard, Korean michin seems to depend to the default case for the semantic extension to positivity since it is positive when combined with (abstract) inanimate nouns. Yet, English crazy behaves differently since in the English language, the adjective is already fixed for negativity combined with inanimate nouns. Thus, English looks for other alternative forms that can extend its basic negative meaning to positivity. We also address the issue of how the semantic extension of English crazy can be explained through metonymic principles depending on under what syntactic environments it appears.
Abstract
This paper explains why Korean michin occurs with (abstract) inanimate nouns to produce positivity while English crazy is productive not with inanimate nouns but with another positive adjective or the preposition about for positivity. In doing so, we focused on the fact that inanimacy serves as the basic concept that can bring about semantic incongruity for the adjectives’s extension to the opposite realm since being crazy usually refers to mental states of animate beings. In this regard, Korean michin seems to depend to the default case for the semantic extension to positivity since it is positive when combined with (abstract) inanimate nouns. Yet, English crazy behaves differently since in the English language, the adjective is already fixed for negativity combined with inanimate nouns. Thus, English looks for other alternative forms that can extend its basic negative meaning to positivity. We also address the issue of how the semantic extension of English crazy can be explained through metonymic principles depending on under what syntactic environments it appears.
참고문헌 (12)
- Bednarke, M., "Semantic Preference and Semantic Prosody Re-examined", Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4(2), pp.119~139 (2008)
- Bublitz, W., "Semantic Prosody and Cohesive Company: Somewhat Predictable", General and Theoretic Papers, 347, pp.1~23 (1995)
- 최영주, "연어환경에서 발견되는 미친과 폭풍의 환유적 의미 확장", 언어학, 24(4), pp.261~280 (2016), 대한언어학회[DOI]
- Hunston, S., "Pattern Grammar" (2000), John Benjamins
- Joh, Y., "The Constructive Use of the Anger Metaphor", Paper presented at the Summer International Conference of Linguistic Society of Korea (2018)
- 조윤경, "The Anger Metaphor and Inanimacy", 영어영문학, 24(2), pp.443~461 (2019), 미래영어영문학회[DOI]
- Krishnamurthy, R., "Linguistic Approaches to Literature", pp.1~16 (1995), University of Birmingham: English Language Research
- Louw, B., "Text and Technology", pp.157~176 (1993), John Benjamins
- Partington, A., "Linguistic Approaches to Literature", pp.25~44 (1995), University of Birmingham: English Language Research
- Partington, A., "Utterly Content in Each Other’s Company: Semantic Prosody and Semantic Preference", International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), pp.131~156 (2004)
- Sinclair, J., "Trust the Text, Language, Corpus and Discourse", pp.24~48 (2004), Routledge
- Vosshagen, C., "Metonymy in Language and Thought", pp.289~308 (1999), Benjamins