• Language and Information
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.1-20
• /
• 2006

This paper is concerned with the distribution and interpretation of yekan and its cognates. Syntactically they require negation, but semantically the sentences in which they occur are positive ones that make monotone increasing inferences possible. This syntax-semantics discrepancy can be best accounted for by showing that yekan and its cousins must be strictly c-commanded by metalinguistic negation at the surface structure and that the positive meaning of the sentences they are part of is derived from the cancellation of the pragmatic upper-bounding implicatum associated with them. These also enable us to explain why they do not occur in the environments where typical NPIs do and why only certain forms of negation license them.

• Journal of Internet Computing and Services
• /
• v.23 no.6
• /
• pp.59-69
• /
• 2022

For effective battlefield situation awareness and command resolution, information exchange without seams between systems is essential. However, since each system was developed independently for its own purposes, it is necessary to ensure interoperability between systems in order to effectively exchange information. In the case of our military, semantic interoperability is guaranteed by utilizing the common message format for data exchange. However, simply standardizing the data exchange format cannot sufficiently guarantee interoperability between systems. Currently, the U.S. and NATO are developing and utilizing information exchange models to achieve semantic interoperability further than guaranteeing a data exchange format. The information exchange models are the common vocabulary or reference model,which are used to ensure the exchange of information between systems at the content-meaning level. The information exchange models developed and utilized in the United States initially focused on exchanging information directly related to the battlefield situation, but it has developed into the universal form that can be used by whole government departments and related organizations. On the other hand, NATO focused on strictly expressing the concepts necessary to carry out joint military operations among the countries, and the scope of the models was also limited to the concepts related to command and control. In this paper, the background, purpose, and characteristics of the information exchange models developed and used in the United States and NATO were identified, and comparative analysis was performed. Through this, we intend to present implications when developing a Korean information exchange model in the future.