함수에 의한 덩키문 해석의 한계
Some Remarks against Interpreting the Donkey Sentences by Function
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper aims to examine the common and different aspects between the readings of the donkey sentences and function, and to reveal some limits on interpreting the readings of the donkey sentences by function. To do this, in chapter 2 the representative readings of the donkey sentences are presented, in chapter 3 the characteristics and kinds of functions are examined and functional features that are found in the natural languages are discovered, and in chapter 4 the donkey sentences are interpreted by function. The result is that there are some readings that can represent the donkey sentences by function, while there are others that can not. In the case of the former, it has been discovered that a universal reading corresponds to a weak reading, but an existential reading to a strong reading. Meanwhile, in the case of the later, it has been revealed that a universal reading is called a strong reading, while an existential reading a weak reading. In addition, it has been concluded that E-type readings and pair quantification readings have also some limits in that the donkey sentences are not easy to be interpreted by function, that is, which are non-functional.
Abstract
This paper aims to examine the common and different aspects between the readings of the donkey sentences and function, and to reveal some limits on interpreting the readings of the donkey sentences by function. To do this, in chapter 2 the representative readings of the donkey sentences are presented, in chapter 3 the characteristics and kinds of functions are examined and functional features that are found in the natural languages are discovered, and in chapter 4 the donkey sentences are interpreted by function. The result is that there are some readings that can represent the donkey sentences by function, while there are others that can not. In the case of the former, it has been discovered that a universal reading corresponds to a weak reading, but an existential reading to a strong reading. Meanwhile, in the case of the later, it has been revealed that a universal reading is called a strong reading, while an existential reading a weak reading. In addition, it has been concluded that E-type readings and pair quantification readings have also some limits in that the donkey sentences are not easy to be interpreted by function, that is, which are non-functional.
참고문헌 (23)
- 강남길, "The Analysis of the Frequencies of Reflexives: A Corpus-Based Account", 영어영문학연구, 54(3), pp.1~24 (2012), 한국중앙영어영문학회
- Bartch, R., "The syntax and semantics of subordinate clause constructions and pronominal reference, in Hery and Schnelle", 23~59 (1979)
- Barwise, J., "Noun Phrases, Generalized Quantifiers and Anaphora, In Generalized Quantifier", pp.1~29 (1987), Kluwer
- Chierchia, G., "Anaphora and Dynamic Binding", Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, pp.111~184 (1992)
- Chierchia, G., "Dynamics of Meaning. Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar" (1995), University of Chicago Press
- Cooper, R., "The Interpretation of Pronouns, In Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table", pp.61~92 (1979), Academic Press
- Evans, G., "Pronouns", Linguistic Inquiry, 11, pp.337~362 (1980)
- Geach, P. T., "Reference and Generality" (1962), Cornell University Press
- Groenendijk, J., "Dynamic Predicate Logic", Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, pp.39~100 (1991)
- Gruets, R., "Donkey Business", In Linguistics and Philosopy, 25, pp.129~156 (2002)
- Hausser, R. P., "How do pronoun denote?", In Heny and Schnelle, 93~139 (1979)
- Heim, I., "The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases", 박사, pp.1982
- Kadmon, N., "Uniqueness", Linguistics & Philosophy, 13, pp.273~324 (1990)
- A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation, In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, "Kamp, H.", Mathematical Centre, 277~322, pp.Mathematical Centre Tracts 135 (1981)
- Krifka, M., "Pragmatic Strengthening in Plural Predications and Donkey Sentences", In the Preceedings of Semantics and Linguistic theory, 6 (1996)
- Lappin, S., "E-type Pronouns, I-Sums, and Donkey Anaphora", Linguistics and Philosophy, 17, pp.391~428 (1994)
- Link, G., "The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theorical Approach", pp.302~323 (1983), Berlin
- Montague, R., "The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English, In Approaches to Natural Language", pp.221~242 (1973), Reidel
- Neale, S., "Descriptions" (1990), MIT Press
- Parsons, T., "Pronouns as Paraphrases", 석사, pp.1978
- Partee, B. H., "Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-Shifting Principles, In Groenendijk", pp.115~143 (1987), Foris Dordrecht
- Rooth, M., "Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics, In Generalized Quantifiers. Linguistic and Logical Approaches", pp.237~268 (1987), Reidel
- Strawson, P., "On referring", Mind, 59, pp.320~344 (1950)