• 영어어문교육
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.37-54
• /
• 2002

Some Korean speakers have trouble in learning the correct pronunciation of many complex English words which have clusters in their onset and coda position. This study shows that the difficulties Korean students have acquiring English pronunciation partly come from syllable structure differences between English and Korean. We provide an analysis based on Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) of the syllable structure difference and suggest that Korean speakers learn the different constraint ranking between English and Korean. This will offer Korean speakers with some helpful methods which will facilitate their learning.

• International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology
• /
• 제5권4호
• /
• pp.44-50
• /
• 2017

The topic of selection of a grammatical subject in a correlative conjunction phrase has long failed to attract the attention of linguists due to some difficulties not only in figuring out the internal structure of NP's conjoined by a correlative conjunction but also in its heavy dependency on the representational aspects each correlative conjunction demonstrates. In this paper, I have explored the seemingly complex patterns in the selection of a grammatical subject in a correlative conjunction phrase in the frame of the Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993, 2008). I show that, with the help of three newly developed constraints such as MinDist, Focus, and PARSE which are ranked relatively to each other, an optimal grammatical subject out of two NP candidates conjoined by a correlative conjunction can be correctly selectable.

• 대한음성학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한음성학회 2000년도 7월 학술대회지
• /
• pp.365-365
• /
• 2000

English segments adopted into Korean can be divided into three types: Some English segments /$m, {\;}n, {\;}{\eta}, {\;}p^h, {\;}t^h, {\;}k^h$/ are adopted into the original sound [$m, {\;}n, {\;}{\eta}, {\;}p^h, {\;}t^h, {\;}k^h$] in Korean. Other segments /b, d, g/ appear in the voiceless stop form [p, t, k]. Generative Phonology explains the presence of the above English segments in Korean but it cannot explain why the English segments /$f, {\;}v, {\;}{\Theta}, {\;}{\breve{z}}, {\;}{\breve{c}}, {\;}{\breve{j}}$/ disappear during the adopting process. I present a set of universal constraints from the Optimality Theory proposed by Prince and Smolensky(l993) and I show how English segments differently adopted into Korean can be explained by these universal constraints such as Faith(feature). N oAffricateStop, Faith(nasal), NoNasalStop, Faith(voice), NoVoicedStop and the interaction of these constraints. I conclude that this Optimality Theory provides insights that better capture the nature of the phonological phenomena of English segments in Korean.

• 예술인문사회 융합 멀티미디어 논문지
• /
• 제9권8호
• /
• pp.783-790
• /
• 2019

인공 신경망의 성공을 토대로 인지과학에서 인간 지능을 설명하려는 시도가 연결주의이다. 딥러닝 등 신경망 컴퓨터의 성과는 연결주의에 대한 전망도 낙관적일 것으로 보여준다. 그러나 고전적 계산주의, 또는 기호주의를 옹호하는 학자들(포더, 필리신, 맥래플린)은 인간의 언어와 사고의 관계를 토대로 연결주의는 성공할 수 없다고 주장하여 왔다. 연결주의에 대한 비판의 핵심은, 인공 신경망에는 체계성이 없기 때문에 신경망의 결과물은 우연적인 연합이나 조합에 불과하다는 것이다. 저자는 이 연구에서 연결주의에 대한 고전적 계산주의의 비판을 검토하고 연결주의가 인공 지능의 이론뿐 아니라 인간 지능의 이론으로서 여전히 확장될 수 있는 가능성을 제시한다. 이 연구의 구조는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 인공 신경망의 구조와 함께 연결주의에 대한 이해를 제시한다. 둘째, 고전적 계산주의자가 연결주의에 제기한 체계성 문제가 무엇인지를 소개한다. 셋째, 그 문제에 대한 연결주의의 대응으로 스몰렌스키의 벡터곱 이론을 소개한다. 넷째, 계산주의와 연결주의의 논쟁을 검토하여 체계성 문제가 어떤 방향으로 갈 때 연결주의와 고전적 계산주의 모두에게 발전적인 논의가 될 수 있는지를 모색한다.

• 영어영문학
• /
• 제55권1호
• /
• pp.129-152
• /
• 2009

The paper aims to prove symmetries of the left and right edges of a morphological unit through the analysis of English blends. Blends are the words derived from two existing words by snipping the middle parts out and putting the rest together, such as smog (

• 대한음성학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한음성학회 1996년도 10월 학술대회지
• /
• pp.109-116
• /
• 1996

In this paper, I would like to explore the possibility that the nature of place assimilation can be captured in terms of the OCP within the Optimality Theory (Mccarthy & Prince 1999. 1995; Prince & Smolensky 1993). In derivational models, each assimilatory process would be expressed through a different autosegmental rule. However, what any such model misses is a clear generalization that all of those processes have the effect of avoiding a configuration in which two consonantal place nodes are adjacent across a syllable boundary, as illustrated in (1):(equation omitted) In a derivational model, it is a coincidence that across languages there are changes that have the result of modifying a structure of the form (1a) into the other structure that does not have adjacent consonantal place nodes (1b). OT allows us to express this effect through a constraint given in (2) that forbids adjacent place nodes: (2) OCP(PL): Adjacent place nodes are prohibited. At this point, then, a question arises as to how consonantal and vocalic place nodes are formally distinguished in the output for the purpose of applying the OCP(PL). Besides, the OCP(PL) would affect equally complex onsets and codas as well as coda-onset clusters in languages that have them such as English. To remedy this problem, following Mccarthy (1994), I assume that the canonical markedness constraint is a prohibition defined over no more than two segments, $\alpha$ and $\beta$: that is, $^{*}\{{\alpha, {\;}{\beta{\}$ with appropriate conditions imposed on $\alpha$ and $\beta$. I propose the OCP(PL) again in the following format (3) OCP(PL) (table omitted) $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the target and the trigger of place assimilation, respectively. The '*' is a reminder that, in this format, constraints specify negative targets or prohibited configurations. Any structure matching the specifications is in violation of this constraint. Now, in correspondence terms, the meaning of the OCP(PL) is this: the constraint is violated if a consonantal place $\alpha$ is immediately followed by a consonantal place $\bebt$ in surface. One advantage of this format is that the OCP(PL) would also be invoked in dealing with place assimilation within complex coda (e.g., sink [si(equation omitted)k]): we can make the constraint scan the consonantal clusters only, excluding any intervening vowels. Finally, the onset clusters typically do not undergo place assimilation. I propose that the onsets be protected by certain constraint which ensures that the coda, not the onset loses the place feature.