BE TO의 부정사는 형용사 상당어구인가?
The Infinitive of BE TO is an Adjective Equivalent?
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
There are three types of ‘be+to-infinitive’ in English: ‘be to,’ ‘BE TO,’ and ‘is to.’ The differences between these types are fully discussed in this study. They have an apparently identical construction in which the verb ‘be’ is followed by an infinitive, but in fact they have different syntactic and semantic characteristics. Jespersen(1940) classified English infinitives into three ranks: primary, secondary and tertiary. The verb ‘be’ of ‘be to’ is a copula and the infinitive is Jespersen’s primary and so a nominal infinitive clause acting as complement of ‘be.’ There are two kinds of infinitives as Jespersen’s secondary: retroactive and non-retroactive. Korean school grammar has argued and taught that Jespersen’s non-retroactive infinitive of BE TO is a subject complement, and so an adjective equivalent. However, this argument has proved to be untenable. Unlike ‘be to,’ ‘BE TO’ cannot be divided into two units, i.e. the verb ‘BE’ and ‘TO-infinitive.’ The whole ‘BE TO’ as a unit is a modal idiom or quasi-modal referring to the future. The infinitive of ‘is to’ is a retroactive. It is an active infinitive which is said to have a passive meaning, but Jespersen(1940) looks upon the infinitive as active and as governing a preceding item as its object.
Abstract
There are three types of ‘be+to-infinitive’ in English: ‘be to,’ ‘BE TO,’ and ‘is to.’ The differences between these types are fully discussed in this study. They have an apparently identical construction in which the verb ‘be’ is followed by an infinitive, but in fact they have different syntactic and semantic characteristics. Jespersen(1940) classified English infinitives into three ranks: primary, secondary and tertiary. The verb ‘be’ of ‘be to’ is a copula and the infinitive is Jespersen’s primary and so a nominal infinitive clause acting as complement of ‘be.’ There are two kinds of infinitives as Jespersen’s secondary: retroactive and non-retroactive. Korean school grammar has argued and taught that Jespersen’s non-retroactive infinitive of BE TO is a subject complement, and so an adjective equivalent. However, this argument has proved to be untenable. Unlike ‘be to,’ ‘BE TO’ cannot be divided into two units, i.e. the verb ‘BE’ and ‘TO-infinitive.’ The whole ‘BE TO’ as a unit is a modal idiom or quasi-modal referring to the future. The infinitive of ‘is to’ is a retroactive. It is an active infinitive which is said to have a passive meaning, but Jespersen(1940) looks upon the infinitive as active and as governing a preceding item as its object.
참고문헌 (20)
- 문용, "고급 영문법해설" (2008), 박영사
- 송성문, "성문 종합영어" (2012), 성문출판사
- 윤만근, "새로운 문의 5형식" (2012), 글로벌콘텐츠
- 윤만근, "우리 영문법에서 잘못된 5가지", 2014년 한국중앙영어영문학회 가을학술발표대회 논문집, pp.1~19 (2014)
- 조성식, "영어문장론" (1957), 청구문화사
- 조성식, "현대영어학연구: 1-14" (1982), 신아사
- 조성식, "영어와 더불어" (1992), 신아사
- Carter, R., "Cambridge Grammar of English" (2006), Cambridge University Press
- Cowan, R., "The Teacher’s Grammar of English" (2008), Cambridge University Press
- Curme, G. O., "Syntax" (1931), Maruzen
- Denison, D., "English Historical Syntax" (1993), Longman
- Eastwood, J., "Oxford Learner’s Grammar Grammar Finder" (2010), Oxford University Press
- Hewings, M., "Advanced Grammar in Use" (2005), Cambridge University press
- Hornby, A. S., "A Guide to Patterns and Usage in English" (1975), Oxford University Press
- Huddleston, R., "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" (2002), Cambridge University Press
- Jespersen, O, "A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles" (1931), Allen & Unwin
- Jespersen, O., "Analytic Syntax" (1937), Holt, Rinehart and Winston
- Onions, C. T., "An Advanced English Syntax" (1929), Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd
- Quirk, R., "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" (1985), Longman
- Swan, M., "Practical English Usage" (2005), Oxford University Press