• 한국언어정보학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국언어정보학회 1991년도 THE SIXTH JAPANESE-KOREAN JOINT CONFERENCE ON FORMAL LINGUISTICS
• /
• pp.230-242
• /
• 1991

• 한국언어정보학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국언어정보학회 1992년도 Language, Information and Computation = Proceedings of Asian Conference, Seoul
• /
• pp.36-49
• /
• 1992

• 인문언어
• /
• 제6권
• /
• pp.321-357
• /
• 2004

In this article the structure of modern Russian humor is analyzed on the basis of some theories: bi-sociation theory (Koestler 1964), semantic script theory of verbal humor, using the concept of semantic presupposition, pragmatic felicity condition (Searle 1969; Levinson 1983) and grammatical rules (Chomsky 1965). Up to now the listed former theories were not examined and less analyzed by the semantic structure in the study of the structure of Russian humor(HcaeBa 1969; 3 $a_{OPHOB}$ 1991; 1992). Kreps (1981), who analyzed the works of Zoschenko, presented 21 types of humor, using the term 'humoreme'(Kpenc 1981, 36-37). These types are the list of the available means of humor that work not in the base of semantic criteria, but in the base of means of literary rhetoric. Kreps presented types of humor means, such as contradiction, antonymic substitution, macaronic speech and correlation of humoremes in the various types of humor. Apart from Kreps, Manakov (MaHaKOB 1986, 61-79) also studied these problems. He also set the system of the basic types of humor. Manakov introduced the linguistic means of humor of some Russian writers: Gogol, Tchechov. The means that Manakov showed with detailed examples, are trope, epithet, comic comparison, comic metaphor, comic periphrasis, euphemism, pun, zeugma, comic toponym, comic onomatopoeia, mania of foreign vocabulary, folk etymology, dialect etc. But these studies don't explain why these means make the works humorous. An, B.p tried to answer this question (안병팔 1997 a; b). An B.p. explains contexts of humor through the Release theory, the Superiority theory and the Incongruity theory. An, B.p. explained the process of deviation from the grammatical norms through morpho-syntactic and lexical means. But in these studies the humor was not analyzed by the semantic criteria. In order to linguistically evaluate various means of humor formation, it is necessary to elicit its deep structure, which makes it possible to research the formation and interpretation of humor. For this purpose this article, being based on the Incongruity theory, defined the structure of humor as negation of presupposition. Of course the former traditional studies also well shared the concept of 'contradiction' and 'contrast' of humor structure, but they didn't explain the structure by semantic differential features. This study, analyzing the works of' Zadornov, M., tried to note that through the negation of semantic presupposition the structure of contradiction is formed with semantic differential features on the semantic, syntactic or lexical dimensions.

• 한국지능시스템학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국지능시스템학회 2008년도 춘계학술대회 학술발표회 논문집
• /
• pp.333-334
• /
• 2008

모든 이론에는 철학적인 전제가 있기 마련이다. 퍼지논리의 경우도 예외는 아니다. 본 논문은 역사적인 접근을 통해 퍼지논리가 상대주의와 다원주의적 세계관을 반영하고 있음을 보이는 것이 목적이다.

• 한국정보과학회 언어공학연구회:학술대회논문집(한글 및 한국어 정보처리)
• /
• 한국정보과학회언어공학연구회 1997년도 제9회 한글 및 한국어 정보처리 학술대회
• /
• pp.233-240
• /
• 1997

일반적으로 전제는 상황에 의해서 취소되지 않는 한, 투사되는 경향이 있다는 것이 관찰되어 왔다. 만족 이론 (satisfaction theory)은 이 경향을 포착하지 못하고. 지시 조응 분석(anaphora analysis)은 이 경향을 설명하려고 했지만 설명이라기 보다는 규정에 가깝다. 본 논문에서는 전제가 정보전달의 한 방법으로서 문장의 다양한 해석을 야기하고, 그 중 정보성이 높은 해석이 선호된다는 주장을 함으로써 이 경향을 설명한다. 이를 위해 어떻게 다양한 해석이 도출되는가를 보여주고, 정보성의 척도를 소개하며, 문장 해석의 정보성을 결정하는 연산자들의 정보성에 관련된 특성을 살핀다. 이로부터 관찰된 전제의 투사 현상을 설명한다. 끝으로 정보성이 높은 해석을 선호하는 것은 경제성과 합리성에 근거한다는 것을 지적한다.

• 영어어문교육
• /
• 제4호
• /
• pp.15-38
• /
• 1998

The main purpose of this paper is to take a look at a controversial approach to critical discourse analysis for the suggestion of a well-balanced perspective on such a biased presupposition and methodology. Currently linguists, language teachers and even social scientists have shown their strong interests in critical language awareness and its ideological involvements in order to encourage the general public to realize the social function of language in all modes of communication. It seems, however, to me to be increasingly clear that critical language study calls for a careful attempt based on an appropriate combination of textual facts and contextual factors in the interpretation of discourses. From this point, of view, this paper suggests some pedagogic / analytical guidelines for a study on language and its social connotations as a result of examining the cogency of two contrasting argumentations in relation to critical discourse analysis.

• 음성과학
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• pp.89-104
• /
• 2004

This paper investigates previous theories on English focus realization and attempts to find out the overall acoustic characteristics of English focus. It has been argued in previous studies that English focus can be defined as a new information that is not recoverable from the context (Halliday 1967), a complementary element of presupposition (Jackendoff 1972), and what is predicated about the topic in a sentence (Sgall 1973, Gundel 1974). The phonetic realization of English focus in an utterance has been said to be either L+H*/H*, or falling accent. Yet it is a more or less simplified pattern not based on real data obtained from native speakers of English, and it does not consider the various pragmatic and contextual situations. In our experiments we found that native speakers uttered English focus sentences in different ways according to the different focus structure. Another notable result is that Korean speakers, when provided with the same experimental material, are neither able to distinguish different focus types nor deaccent the elements that are not focused in an utterance.

• 대한음성언어의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한음성언어의학회 2003년도 제19회 학술대회
• /
• pp.129-225
• /
• 2003

초점에 대한 언급이 Halliday(1967)에 의해 처음으로 시작된 이래로 초점의 개념에 대한 다양한 접근과 많은 논의가 이루어져 왔다. 일반적으로, 초점은 다음과 같이 정의할 수 있다. 첫째, 초점은 문맥에서 복구가 불가능한 요소를 가리킨다. 초점이라는 용어를 최초로 언급한 Halliday (1967)에 따르면, 초점이란 신정보를 가리키며 이전 담화 문맥에서 복구할 수 없는 정보가 곧 초점이다. 둘째, 초점은 전제 (presupposition)와 대응되는 개념이다. Jackendoff(1972)에 따르면, 담화 문맥에서 이루어지는 발화는 화자와 청자 사이에 공유된 정보와 그렇지 않은 정보로 나뉘며, 그 중 공유된 정보가 전제이고 이에 상보적으로 대응되는 비전제 (non-presupposed)가 곧 초점이다. 셋째, 초점은 화제(topic)와 대응되는 개념이다. Sgall(1973)과 Gundel(1974)에 따르면, 하나의 발화는 문맥상 화제와 초점으로 나뉘며 화제는 흔히 문장에서 무엇에 대해 말하려고 하는가'인 반면, 초점은 발화에서 화제를 제외한 나머지 부분으로서 담화에서 '화제에 대해서 서술되고 있는 바'를 나타낸다고 본다. (중략)

• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.111-125
• /
• 2016

In this paper I argue that the subject in a Korean kes-cleft construction denotes the discourse referent that stands for the entity that satisfies the description of the cleft clause. This denotation thereby can be understood as a meta-linguistic referent which refers to the linguistic expression for a presupposed entity. In support of this claim, it is shown an anaphoric expression kekes also can be analyzed as a meta-linguistic referent. This analysis can explain why the subject and the predicate of a kes-cleft in Korean allow animacy crash.

• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제6권2호
• /
• pp.83-104
• /
• 2002

I argue that Definiteness Effect (DE) should include Indefiniteness Restriction (IR) as well as Definiteness Restriction (DR). DR is exhibited by existential constructions, predicate nominals, inalienable possession constructions, and verbs with semantic features like 〔((CAUSE TO) COME TO) EXIST〕. IR is caused by some existence presupposition of aspectual adverbs, aspectual verbs, repetitives, and topic markers. The environments for DR and IR determine the (in)definiteness of Korean bare noun phrases which otherwise can be used either way. The neutralization of DR is also induced by focus which imposes a certain amount of structure on the event quantification. Van der Sandt's (1992) Presuppositions-as- Anaphora-Theory is effectively used to account for those examples from DR, ID, and the neutralization of BR.