러시아어 등위접속연구: 동반구문과 и접속 및 제로접속과의 비교를 중심으로
A study on coordination in Russian - Comparison among commitative, zero coordination and i coordination
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The study investigates the relationship among the zero strategy, and strategy and with strategy which are realized syntactically through enumeration of items, i coordinaton and comitative construction. It tried to show their complementary distribution, semantic and pragmatic characteristics based on syntactic peculiarities. In the case of coordination of two arguments, comitative constructions and i coordination show complementary distribution. In this case, i coordination has two properties – equivalence and independence, in the meanwhile comitative constructions have other two opposite properties – inequivalence, and dependence. Sometimes, according to the semantic characteristics of the situations or actions, the selection between i coordination and comitative constructions. In the case of coordination of two and/or arguments, i coordinations and enumeration show complementary distribution. i coordination has an exhaustive reading which compose closed set of arguments, in the meanwhile enumeration composes open set and imply that the speech has not been completed by speaker and more items can be added to the list. In i coordination, the last argument right before conjunction i is usually the least salient one in speaker's cognition in that it comes into his head, and activates for the last time.
Abstract
The study investigates the relationship among the zero strategy, and strategy and with strategy which are realized syntactically through enumeration of items, i coordinaton and comitative construction. It tried to show their complementary distribution, semantic and pragmatic characteristics based on syntactic peculiarities. In the case of coordination of two arguments, comitative constructions and i coordination show complementary distribution. In this case, i coordination has two properties – equivalence and independence, in the meanwhile comitative constructions have other two opposite properties – inequivalence, and dependence. Sometimes, according to the semantic characteristics of the situations or actions, the selection between i coordination and comitative constructions. In the case of coordination of two and/or arguments, i coordinations and enumeration show complementary distribution. i coordination has an exhaustive reading which compose closed set of arguments, in the meanwhile enumeration composes open set and imply that the speech has not been completed by speaker and more items can be added to the list. In i coordination, the last argument right before conjunction i is usually the least salient one in speaker's cognition in that it comes into his head, and activates for the last time.
참고문헌 (29)
- 김정일, "러시아어 с 동반구문 연구", 러시아어문학연구논집, (34), pp.151~173 (2010), 한국러시아문학회
- 송은지, "현대 러시아어에서의 접속사 А와 НО – 그 의미적, 화용적 기능의 변별성", 러시아연구, 11(1), pp.97~127 (2001)
- 이기웅, "러시아어 소사 “И”에 대해서", 러시아연구, 21(1), pp.157~178 (2011), 러시아연구소
- 이주홍, "러시아어 'C' 동반구문에서의 일치에 관한 연구", 석사, pp.2006
- Апресян, Ю. Д, "Новый объяснительный словарь синонимов русскогоязыка. Второе издание, исправленное и дополненное" (2004), Языки славян-ской культуры
- Aрхипов, А. В., "Типология комитативных конструкций" (2009), Знак
- Богуславский, И. М., "Сфера действия лексических единиц" (1996), Языкирусской культуры
- Вайс, Д, "Двойный глаголы в русском языке, In Категория сказуемого в славянских языках: модальность и актуализация: Акты междунар. Конференции" (2003), Cretosa di Pontignano
- Кручинина, И. Н., "Структура и функции сочинительной связи врусском языке" (1988), Наука
- Николаева, Т. М., "Функции частиц в высказывании: на материалеславянских языков" (1985), Наука
- Николаева, Т. М, "Сочинительные союзы А, НО, И: история,сходства и различия, In Славянские сочинительные союзы" (1997), Институтславяноведения и балканистики РАН
- Санников В. З., "Русские сочинительные конструкции: Семантика.Прагматика" (1989), Наука
- Урысон Е. В., "Опыт описания семантики союзов" (2011), Языки славян-ских культур
- Фужерон, И., "О некоторых особенностях русских сочинительныхсоюзов. Союзы И и А, Союзы А и Но, In в кн. Т. М. Николаева ред.Славянские сочинительные союзы" (1997), Институт славяноведения ибалканстики РАН
- Dyła, Stefan, "On Comitative Constructions in Polish and Russian", Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Fifth Conference, Leipzig (2008), Frankfurt am Main
- Feldman, Anna, "Comitative and Plural Pronoun Constructions", Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Israel Association of Theoretical Linguistics (IATL) (2003), Jerusalem
- Lakoff, Robin, "If's, And's, and But's About Conjuction", pp.114~149 (1971), Studies in Linguistic Semantics
- Miller, J, "Some Types of phrasal conjunction in Russian", Journal of Linguistics, 7, pp.55~69 (1971), Cambridge University Press
- Paillard D, "I conjonction et particule, In Les particules énonciatives en russe contemporain. Vol. 1", pp.135~195 (1986), Institut d'Études Slaves
- Payne, John R, "Complex Phrases and Complex Sentences, In Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. II.: Complex Constructions", pp.3~41 (1985), Cambridge University Press
- Timberlake, A., "Reference Conditions on Russian Reflexivization", Language, 56, pp.77~796 (1980)
- Urtz Bernadette J, "The Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics of a Nominal Conjunction: The Case of Russian S-", 박사, pp.1994
- van Schooneveld C. H, "Semantic Transmutation: prolegomena to a calculus of meaning" (1978), PHYSSARDT
- Vassilieva, Masha, "On the Typology of Russian Comitatives", FASL, 9, pp.327~344 (2001)
- Vassilieva, Masha, "The Semantics of the Plural Pronoun Construction", Natural Language Science, 13, pp.101~124 (2005)
- Wierzbicka, Anna, "And' and Plurality, In Semantic Primitives", pp.166~190 (1972), Athenäum
- Yokoyama, Olga, "The Semantics of Optional Rules: Russian Personal and Reflexive Possessives, In Sound, Sign and Meaning", pp.249~270 (1977), University of Michigan
- Yokoyama, Olga, "On Sentence Coordination in Russian: A Functional Approach", Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society, pp.431~438 (1980)