• 영어어문교육
• /
• 제9권spc호
• /
• pp.131-148
• /
• 2003

This paper, conducted within the GB framework, investigates inversion phenomena in the functional categories, Focalization Phrases and Topicalization Phrases. The leading idea of this paper is that formal feature checking in these two functional categories is mostly responsible for inversion in which either verb or auxiliary verbs appear in front of subjects and also it will try to find an answer to the following questions: "What are the features that trigger the inversion?" and "Can all the inversion constructions explained by Haegeman's Focalization & Topicalization?" My discussion is largely based on English inversion constructions such as wh-inversion, negative inversion, and adverbial inversion. Also I will show there are some problems in Topicalization and Focalization analysis to explain some inversion constructions and present Rizzi(1999)'s analysis for those problems.

• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• pp.87-103
• /
• 2007

This paper reanalyzes examples with missing verbs. Northern Mandarin rejects argument nominal phrases after a silent verb, as well as silent verbs inside islands. These restrictions suggest a grammatical process which silences verbs. I propose that these restrictions are the result of VP-topicalization followed by ellipsis. This analysis accounts for the island sensitivity of these constructions: since VP-topicalization feeds ellipsis, constructions with elided VPs are not derivable from configurations where movement is impossible. Also, to avoid topicalization along with the VP, the argument must move out of VP; the subsequent topicalization of the VP containing the argument's trace would then give rise to a configuration where that trace c-commands the moved-out DP. Adjuncts do not pose a problem because they are located outside of that smallest VP-shell. The data presented here are accommodated by neither of Tang's (2001) proposals for silent verbs (gapping and empty verbs). Instead, they provide support for a third source for silent verbs, VP-ellipsis via topicalization.

• 영어영문학
• /
• 제56권5호
• /
• pp.871-905
• /
• 2010

This paper is motivated by Watanabe's (2001) observation that English byphrase passives are sometimes translated into Japanese object topicalization constructions. That is, the original English sentence in the passive may be translated into the active voice with the logical object topicalized. A number of scholars, including Chomsky (1981) and Baker (1992), have remarked that languages have various ways to avoid focusing on the logical subject. The aim of the present study is to examine the translation equivalents of the English by-phrase passives in an English-Korean parallel corpus compiled by the author. A small sample of articles from Newsweek magazine and its published Korean translation reveals that there are indeed many ways to translate English by-phrase passives, including object topicalization (12.5%). Among the 64 translated sentences analyzed and classified, 12 (18.8%) examples were problematic in terms of agent defocusing, which is the primary function of passives. Of these 12 instances, five cases were identified where an alternative translation would be more suitable. The results suggest that the functional characteristics of English by-phrase passives should be highlighted in translator training as well as language teaching.

• 한국영어학회지:영어학
• /
• 제3권1호
• /
• pp.37-54
• /
• 2003

본 논문에서는 문장의 어떤 구성성분을 앞으로 이동한 후 주어-동사의 표준어순으로 나타나는 전치문과 동사-주어의 비표준어순으로 나타나는 도치문에 대하여 각각의 통사적 특징과 담화 화용론적 기능을 살펴보고, 전치문과 도치문을 비교하여 그 차이점과 공통점을 알아보았다. 다양한 구성요소의 이동에 따라 명사구 전치, 전치사구 전치, 형용사구 전치, 동사구 전치, 분사구 전치 등으로 구별되어 고려되어왔던 다양한 전치문들을 주제화라는 하나의 통합된 규칙으로 설명하였으며, 모든 전치 구성성분은 현 담화를 이전담화에 연결시키며, 이전 담화로부터 주어진 요소임과 동시에 현 담화의 틀을 제공한다는 점에서 그 문장 또는 그 담화의 주제라고 보았다. Ward(1990)가 논의한 동사구 전치의 네 가지 기능, 즉 독립적 명제확인, 양보적확인, 정도확인, 명제유보의 기능을 하나로 일반화하여 주제에 대한 논평을 첨가하는 ‘주제+논평’ 구조로 보았다. 전치와 후치를 모두 포함하고 있는 도치문에서 전치되는 요소들은 문장 또는 담화 내에서 구정보를, 후치된 성분은 신정보를 표시한다. 즉, 문장요소의 담화상의 친숙도가 이동하는 구성성분의 문장내의 위치를 결정하는데 결정적이다. 도치문에서 전치된 요소는 문장 내에서 ‘실용’, ‘연결’, ‘강조’, ‘소개’ 등의 다양한 기능을 하는데 이를 전치성분은 후치된 명사구를 이전 담화에 명시적으로 나타났거나 추론가능한 정보와 연결하는 ‘연결’기능을 하는 것으로 설명하였다. 전치문과 도치문은 이전 담화와 어떻게든 연결관계를 갖는다는 것이 공통적인데, 전치문에서 전치요소는 절대적인 구정보를 표시하나, 도치문에서는 담화상 상대적 구정보를 표시하기만 하면 된다. 이것으로 화자가 발화시 전치시키는 요소는 그 요소가 청자의 지식 내에서 어떤 정보상태에 있다고 화자가 평가하는가에 따라 전치문을 선택할지 도치문을 선택할지가 결정됨을 알 수 있다.

• 한국어학
• /
• 제65권
• /
• pp.295-320
• /
• 2014

The idiom is listed in the lexicon, because it's meaning cannot be inferred from it's constituents. And the idiom is a single semantic unit. Thus the idiom is inserted to the syntax in the quality of a word. But the idiom is not always inserted to the syntax as a word. In the process generating the sentence, we can recognize the categorial property of the idiom that it is formally equal to the syntactic phrase. Then each of the constituents of the idiom can be inserted to the syntax. This is why the syntactic operation(as modification, topicalization, relativization, etc) can be applied to the constituent of the idiom. In this respect the idiom is a flexible construction as the listeme of a lexicon. The flexible property of the idiom is related to the dynamicity of a lexicon. The formal or semantic transformation of the idiom is the good example to show the dynamicity of a lexicon.

• 한국영어학회지:영어학
• /
• 제4권2호
• /
• pp.117-149
• /
• 2004

The paper is to argue against the asymmetric CP-V2 analysis of Old English, according to which finite verbs invariably undergo movement into a clause-final T within subordinate clauses and reach the functional head C within main clauses. The asymmetric CP-V2 analysis, first of all, faces difficulty in explaining a wide range of post-verbal elements within subordinate clauses. To resolve the problem, the analysis has to abandon the obligatoriness of V-to-T movement or introduce various types of extraposition whose status is dubious as a legitimate syntactic operation. Obligatory V-to-T movement in Old English lacks conceptual justification as well. Crosslinguistic evidence reveals that morphological richness in verbal inflection cannot entail overt verb movement. Moreover, the operation is always string-vacuous under the asymmetric CP- V2 analysis and has no effect at the interfaces, in violation of the principle of economy. The distribution of Old English finite verbs in main clauses also undermines the asymmetric CP-V2 analysis. Conceptually speaking, a proper syntactic trigger cannot be confirmed to motivate obligatory verb movement to C. The operation not only gets little support from nominative Case marking, the distribution of expletives, or complementizer agreement but also requires the unconvincing stipulation that expletives as well as sentence-initial subjects result from string-vacuous topicalization. Finally, textual evidence testifies that Old English sometimes permits non-V2 ordering patterns, many of which remain unexplained under the asymmetric CP-V2 analysis.

• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제6권2호
• /
• pp.1-14
• /
• 2002

This paper discusses so called the non-DP subject constructions in English. In general, a subject is a DP that bears Nominative case and that occupies 〔Spec, IP〕. However, in some examples under investigation, it looks as if non-DP categories such as Prepositional Phrases(PP), Adjectival Phrases(AP), Adverbial Phrases (AdvP), Small Clauses (PreP or SC), and VP occupy the canonical subject position, 〔Spec, IP〕. Under the framework of Chomsky's (1993, 1995) along with his previous works (Chomsky 1981, 1986), the Case Checking mechanism undoubtedly assumes that only DPs can have Case Therefore, the Case Checking/Agree mechanism is stated such that the strong uninterpretable feature, in this case Case feature (D or NP) feature must be checked off in a certain manner. Therefore, any phrasal categories other than DPs are not included in the considerations. Nonetheless, there are many instances of non-DP categories in English that occupy the seemingly canonical subject position, 〔spec, IP〕. In this paper, it is proposed that the actual position of these non-DP subjects in English is not in Spec of IP. Rather, they occupy 〔Spec, TopP〕 under CP in the sense of Lasnik & Stowell (1991), Rizzi (1997), and Haegeman & Gueron (1999). In its effect, therefore, this paper extends the idea of Stowell (1981) who argues that the clausal subjects in English is not in 〔Spec, IP〕, but in 〔Spec, TopP〕. We further argue that Stowell's version of Case Resistance Principle must be extended in order to accomodate many more occurrences of so called non-DP subjects.