국어 분열문의 통사 구조
The Syntactic Structure of Cleft Sentences in Korea
1
조회
0
다운로드
17
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Cleft sentences are interesting in the respect that they should be interpreted with connection to the neutral sentences from which they are derived. They cannot be distinguished from neutral sentences without considering the contexts where they are used. In this paper, we take note on the meaning difference (of refrentiality) between the sentences which got cleft and the ones which did not, and argue that this difference should reflect the syntactic distance between both types of sentences. They are different in their deep syntactic structures and many syntactic constraints throw sidelight on the fact. To make a neutral sentence get cleft is a way of information packaging as known by other early works. This paper examines the process several sentences got cleft, and conclude that it is not careful enough to express it as ‘cleft’. To describe it more analytically, it should be explained that it is the result of two actions, we may call them ‘focusing process’ together, ‘repetition of the neutral clause’ and ‘cancellation’ of the phrases which are presupposed--not focused, in actuality.
Abstract
Cleft sentences are interesting in the respect that they should be interpreted with connection to the neutral sentences from which they are derived. They cannot be distinguished from neutral sentences without considering the contexts where they are used. In this paper, we take note on the meaning difference (of refrentiality) between the sentences which got cleft and the ones which did not, and argue that this difference should reflect the syntactic distance between both types of sentences. They are different in their deep syntactic structures and many syntactic constraints throw sidelight on the fact. To make a neutral sentence get cleft is a way of information packaging as known by other early works. This paper examines the process several sentences got cleft, and conclude that it is not careful enough to express it as ‘cleft’. To describe it more analytically, it should be explained that it is the result of two actions, we may call them ‘focusing process’ together, ‘repetition of the neutral clause’ and ‘cancellation’ of the phrases which are presupposed--not focused, in actuality.
참고문헌 (17)
- 김영희, "쪼갠문의 기능과 통사", 어문학, 69, pp.65~90 (2000), 한국어문학회
- 김영희, "논항의 판별 기준", 한글, 266, pp.139~167 (2004), 한글학회
- 김영희, "한국어 통사 현상의 의의" (2005), 역락
- 박철우, "국어의 보충어와 부가어 판별 기준", 언어학, (34), pp.75~111 (2002), 한국언어학회
- 박철우, "한국어 정보구조에서의 화제와 초점" (2003), 역락
- 박철우, "세종전자사전의 ‘이다’ 구문 기술과 표상", 한국어 계사 ‘-이(다)’의 쟁점 워크숍 (2005), 서울대학교 언어교육원 세종 전자사전 개발연구단
- 박철우, "‘이다’ 구문의 통사구조와 {이}의 문법적 지위", 한국어학, (33), pp.235~263 (2006), 한국어학회
- 서정수, "국어문법" (2006), 도서출판 한세본
- 이익섭, "국어문법론" (1985), 학연사
- 임규홍, "국어 분열문에 관한 연구", 어문학, 48, pp.155~175 (1986), 한국어문학회
- 장세은, "Headed nominalization in Korean: Relative clauses, clefts, and comparatives", Doctor, pp.1994
- 장세은, "영어 It-분열문의 CP-지정어 분석", 언어학, 6(2), pp.23~43 (1998), 대한언어학회
- 허 웅, "20세기 우리말의 형태론" (1995), 샘 문화사
- 홍재성, "현대 한국어 동사구문의 연구" (1987), 탑출판사
- Drubig, H., "Language Typology and Language Universals", An International Handbook 20, 2, pp.1079~1104 (2001), Walter de Gruyter
- Heycock, C., "Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level", Linguistic Inquiry, 30, pp.365~397 (1999)
- Lambrecht, K., "A framework for the analysis of cleft", Linguistics, 39(3), pp.463~516 (2001), Walter de Gruyter