A Study of Object Case Marking
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this paper is to show the difference in the grammatical encoding of the cross-categorial semantic distinction ‘bounded/unbounded’, a distinction that concerns the dimension of quantity of objects and events. Czech encodes it on the verb with V0-modifiers, whereas Finnish in the NP with case suffixes. In Finnish, the accusative/partitive case alternation that expresses the ‘bounded/unbounded’ distinction in the domain of individuals is systematically exploited to indicate the aspectual distinction, a distinction in the domain of events. In Czech, the encoding system of V0-modifiers that expresses the ‘bounded/unbounded’ distinction in the domain of events is exploited for conveying certain meanings that are related to those of articles within NPs in such languages as English, for example. Czech and Finnish clearly differ in the language-specific schematizations that are associated with their respective linguistic representations. However, the interaction between verbal and nominal predicates in Finnish and Czech is based on the same general principles that can be best accounted for within the lattice-theoretic analysis
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to show the difference in the grammatical encoding of the cross-categorial semantic distinction ‘bounded/unbounded’, a distinction that concerns the dimension of quantity of objects and events. Czech encodes it on the verb with V0-modifiers, whereas Finnish in the NP with case suffixes. In Finnish, the accusative/partitive case alternation that expresses the ‘bounded/unbounded’ distinction in the domain of individuals is systematically exploited to indicate the aspectual distinction, a distinction in the domain of events. In Czech, the encoding system of V0-modifiers that expresses the ‘bounded/unbounded’ distinction in the domain of events is exploited for conveying certain meanings that are related to those of articles within NPs in such languages as English, for example. Czech and Finnish clearly differ in the language-specific schematizations that are associated with their respective linguistic representations. However, the interaction between verbal and nominal predicates in Finnish and Czech is based on the same general principles that can be best accounted for within the lattice-theoretic analysis
참고문헌 (12)
- Dahl, O, "Verbal Aspects and Object Marking : A Comparison between Finnish and Russian", International Review of Slavic Linguistics, 1(1), pp.1~29 (1976)
- Dowry, D. R., "Toward a Semantic Analysis of Verb Aspect and the English ‘Imperfective’ Progressive", Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, pp.45~79 (1977)
- Dowry, D. R., "Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection", Language, 67, pp.547~619 (1991)
- Fillmore, C. J., "Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammar : The Case of Ler Alone", Language, 64, pp.231~249 (1988)
- Karlsson, F., "Finnish Grammar" (1983), Juva
- Krifka, M., "Nominalreferenz and Zeitkonstiturion. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Individuahermen, Aspekrklassen", Ph.D., pp.1986
- Kriika, M., "Lexical Matters", pp.29~53 (2009)
- Link, G., "The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms. In Beuerle, R., Ch. Schwarze and A. von Stechow(eds. ), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language", pp.302~323 (1983), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language
- Kucera, H., "A Semantic Model of Verbal Aspect", American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists, pp.171~184 (1983)
- Pollard, C., "Head-Drive Phrase Structure Grammar" (1993), Chicago University Press
- Shieber, S. M., "An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar" (1986), Stanford University Press
- Tommola, H., "Verbal Aspect in Discourse", pp.349~366 (1990), John Benjamins Publishing Company