국어 격 범주의 성격과 격 체계의 설정

이호승(Lee Ho-seung) 한국어문학회 2012 語文學 Vol.0 No.117

In Korean the characteristics of case can come to light only if two linguistic facts is understood accurately. One is that syntactic relations and semantic roles are the category which is interpreted about what kind of grammatical relations the constituents of the sentence have. Another is that Korean case markers need not be a one-for-one correspondence with syntactic relations or semantic roles. Korean case is a system of marking dependent nouns for the syntactic relations and semantic roles they bear to their heads. In Korean cases denote not case forms of nouns but only case maker can be separated from the nouns. The speakers can have a choice of case markers appropriate for context or grammatical sentence via information retrieval in lexicon. In Korean nouns without case markers have no any case. And syntactic relations and semantic roles of these nouns are interpreted with syntactic-semantic informations in lexicon. Accordingly abstract case is not recognized as Korean case. In Korean many case markers express two or more syntactic relations and semantic roles. In order to catch common or different features among the case markers, the case system in Korean is established in the manner that a case marker is attached to two or more syntactic relations or semantic roles.

<論語> ‘如’, ‘何’의 의미구조와 통사적 특징 고찰

한경숙 단국대학교 동양학연구원 2015 東洋學 Vol.59 No.-

Semantics is the concentrated body language, in order to study the language must start from the semantic. Because the semantics is the necessary factors of language. Therefore, through the study of melting in the syntax of lexical analysis, semantic structure and syntactic features of words, semantic feature to find the words. Distinguishing features and will find all words. Analysis, grammatical analysis of Lunyu in the “Ru” and “He” of the semantic and syntactic was carefully examines the componential analysis and semantic structure by using the. Based on investigation and analysis of the “Ru” and “He” form of language features, sememe find “Ru” and “He”. The differences between characteristics between the different components through a variety of characteristics of the “Ru” and “He”. 언어의 필연적 함축물인 의미의 실체를 파악하기 위해서는 의미론적으로 언어연구에 접근하는 것이 매우중요해졌다. 왜냐하면 의미가 언어의 필수요소이기 때문이다. 그렇기 때문에 그 어휘가 활용되는 문장 속에서그 어휘의 통사적 특징에 대해 분석하고 그 통사 속에서 의미구조를 분석하면서 어휘 자신만의 자질을 찾아갈수 있고 더 나아가 다른 어휘와의 차이를 나타내주는 변별적 자질도 찾아낼 수 있게 된다. 본고는 의미소 분석법과 의미구조 분석법 그리고 격(case)문법 분석법을 이용하여 論語 중의 ‘如’와 ‘何’의 통사와 의미구조에대하여 고찰하였다. 이런 고찰을 통하여 ‘如’와 ‘何’ 언어형식의 특징을 분석하였고 이들의 의미소를 분석하였다. 의미소 분석법과 의미구조 분석법 그리고 격(case)문법 분석법으로 論語 중의 ‘如’와 ‘何’의 여러 가지 의미자질을 분석해냈고 이런 의미자질들을 통하여 ‘如’와 ‘何’의 여러 성분 사이의 변별적 자질을 고찰해냈다.

Three Types of Fragment

위혜경 한국생성문법학회 2014 생성문법연구 Vol.24 No.1

This study reviews the three types of approaches toward ellipsis thatStainton(2006) categorized based on the view of up to which level afragment is supposed to have elided elements, that is, ellipsissyntactic,ellipsissemantic, and ellipsispragmatic. First, it is argued that a fragmentoccurring without the linguistic antecedent should be regarded as aninstance of ellipsissemantic as Merchant (2007) claimed rather thanellipsispragmatic as Stainton claimed. It is shown that Merchant's view thatseemingly non-propositional fragmentary expressions are actuallypropositions containing hidden free variables fits the perspective of astandard semantic theory such as Montagovian semantics. Second, aftertwo types of fragments occurring as answers to questions in Korean, thatis, case-marked fragments (CMF) and caseless fragments (CLF), areexamined, it is argued that while case-marked fragments can be viewedas syntactic ellipsis, caseless fragmentary answers are not ellipsis, butterm answers in the sense of Stechow & Zimmermann (1984). Specifically, it is claimed that a CLF serves as an argument to thefunction for the preceding wh-question, based on a Functional approachto semantics of questions (Krifka 2001 among others), whereby iteventually forms a semantic proposition which in turn conveys thedeclarative force. It is concluded that there are three types of fragmentsafter all in English and Korean with respect to whether or not thefragments have unpronounced syntactic or semantic structures, which donot coincide with Stainton's three-way distinction.

Three Types of Fragments

Hae-Kyung Wee 한국생성문법학회 2014 생성문법연구 Vol.24 No.1

This study reviews the three types of approaches toward ellipsis that Stainton(2006) categorized based on the view of up to which level a fragment is supposed to have elided elements, that is, ellipsissyntactic, ellipsissemantic, and ellipsispragmatic. First, it is argued that a fragment occurring without the linguistic antecedent should be regarded as an instance of ellipsissemantic as Merchant (2007) claimed rather than ellipsispragmatic as Stainton claimed. It is shown that Merchant's view that seemingly non-propositional fragmentary expressions are actually propositions containing hidden free variables fits the perspective of a standard semantic theory such as Montagovian semantics. Second, after two types of fragments occurring as answers to questions in Korean, that is, case-marked fragments (CMF) and caseless fragments (CLF), are examined, it is argued that while case-marked fragments can be viewed as syntactic ellipsis, caseless fragmentary answers are not ellipsis, but term answers in the sense of Stechow & Zimmermann (1984). Specifically, it is claimed that a CLF serves as an argument to the function for the preceding wh-question, based on a Functional approach to semantics of questions (Krifka 2001 among others), whereby it eventually forms a semantic proposition which in turn conveys the declarative force. It is concluded that there are three types of fragments after all in English and Korean with respect to whether or not the fragments have unpronounced syntactic or semantic structures, which do not coincide with Stainton's three-way distinction.

구문의미트리 비교기를 이용한 주관식 문항 채점 시스템에 대한 연구

강원석 ( Wonseog Kang ) 한국컴퓨터교육학회 2018 컴퓨터교육학회 논문지 Vol.21 No.6

주관식 문항은 깊이 있는 사고능력 평가와 고등정신능력 평가에 적합하나 채점하기가 쉽지 않다. 동일한 채점기준을 갖더라도 채점자에 따라 다른 채점결과를 가져올 수 있으므로 객관적인 자동 채점 시스템이 필요하다. 그렇지만 채점 시스템은 표현 언어인 한국어 분석과 비교의 문제가 걸려있다. 본 연구는 한국어의 구문 분석을 구현하고 결과인 구문분석 트리를 비교하는 비교기를 이용하여 주관식 문항을 채점하는 채점 시스템을 설계, 개발하였다. 이 시스템은 단어 중심의 채점 시스템과 구문의미트리 중심의 채점 시스템을 복합한 시스템으로 구문의미트리 비교기를 활용하였다. 본 시스템의 실험 결과 제안한 구문의미트리 중심의 채점 시스템과 복합 채점 시스템이 더 나은 결과를 가져옴을 알 수 있었다. 본 연구는 한국어 구문의미분석과 주관식 채점 영역에 활용할 수 있고 또한 문서 분류에도 활용할 수 있을 것이다. The subjective question is appropriate for evaluation of deep thinking, but it is not easy to score. Since, regardless of same scoring criterion, the graders are able to produce different scores, we need the objective automatic evaluation system. However, the system has the problem of Korean analysis and comparison. This paper suggests the Korean syntactic analysis and subjective grading system using the syntactic-semantic tree comparator. This system is the hybrid grading system of word based and syntactic-semantic tree based grading. This system grades the answers on the subjective question using the syntactic-semantic comparator. This proposed system has the good result. This system will be utilized in Korean syntactic-semantic analysis, subjective question grading, and document classification.

영어의 통사ㆍ의미적 상과 상 표지

양용준 ( Yang Yong-jun ) 대한영어영문학회 2008 영어영문학연구 Vol.34 No.4

The purpose of this paper is to survey and analyze the English syntacticㆍsemantic aspect and aspectual marker. Originally, aspect was understood as characteristics which verbs mean, however, aspect concepts have changed with the development of transformational generative grammar. In traditional grammar, aspect was not well known to people. However, I’d like to reveal the aspect into the surface through this paper. I divided aspect into syntactic aspect and semantic aspect. Of course, it is a view-point’s difference. Also, I insist that there are aspectual markers in English. They are “have+pp” and “be+-ing” in syntactic aspect and there are many kinds of aspectual markers in semantic aspect. From now on, we have to know aspect and tense differently. Although they have very similar points, I suggest that we have to classify them clearly. (Cheju National University)

近代語 ‘먹다’와 ‘삼키다’에 關한 硏究

고명균 한국언어문화교육학회 2013 언어와 문화 Vol.9 No.2

This study aims to research the modification of ‘먹다’ and ‘삼키다’ in the modern language, and proceeds identify their synonymy through their syntactic-semantic relationship and translation of Sino-Korean words. For the syntactic-semantic relationship, the ‘NP1-이 NP2-를 먹다/삼키다.’ sentences was the main focus of attention. The first, sentence addresses the basic meaning of the two words, and the second, the semantic extensions that function as polysemous expressions. Identification of the synonymic-relationship between the two words in the modern language was possible by first, by comparing and contrasting the Sino-Korean word and the native Korean word through translation, second by comparing the objects (target roles of NP2) in the predicates of ‘NP1-이 NP2-를 먹다/삼키다’ sentences, finally through the certification of the opposite meaning.

근대어(近代語) ‘먹다’와 ‘다’에 관(關)한 연구(硏究)

高明均 ( Ko Myung Gyun ) 한국언어문화교육학회 2013 언어와 문화 Vol.9 No.2

This study aims to research the modification of ‘먹다’ and ‘다’ in the modern language, and proceeds identify their synonymy through their syntactic-semantic relationship and translation of Sino-Korean words. For the syntactic-semantic relationship, the ‘NP1-이 NP2-를 먹다/ 다.’ sentences was the main focus of attention. The first, sentence addresses the basic meaning of the two words, and the second, the semantic extensions that function as polysemous expressions. Identification of the synonymic-relationship between the two words in the modern language was possible by first, by comparing and contrasting the Sino-Korean word and the native Korean word through translation, second by comparing the objects (target roles of NP2) in the predicates of ‘NP1-이 NP2-를 먹다/다’ sentences, finally through the certification of the opposite meaning. (Kansai Univ.)

영어 모문동사와 보충어의 내재의미 자질일치

송지미(Ji mi Song) 한국영미어문학회 2014 영미어문학 Vol.- No.114

The purpose of this study is to explore the internal semantic feature agreement between a matrix verb and its complement in English. As a complement, the forms of an object are varied such as DP, that-clause, to-infinitive clause and gerundive clause. Every matrix verb, however, can't select these types of object freely as its complement. There appear to be formal and selectional restrictions based on syntactic-semantic properties between each verb and its complement when a matrix verb selects its object as a complement. This restriction is referred to as 'internal semantic feature agreement' between an matrix verb and its complement. So as to examine and understand such feature agreement in principle, I attempted to verify it by using a corpus. The resulting corpus analyses show that a DP is selected by the class of matrix verbs whose inherent semantic properties denote 'reference-feature', a that-clause 'proposition feature', a to-infinitive clause 'future feature', and a gerundive clause 'past feature'. This study shows that the internal semantic feature agreement plays an important role in the merger process of a complement into a matrix verb.

An Experimental Study on the Meaning of Urdu Universal Quantifiers

( Saima Hassan ) 서울대학교 인지과학연구소 2010 Journal of Cognitive Science Vol.11 No.2

The virtually universal opinion of semanticists is that the collective or distributive construal of English quantified statements results from the collective and distributive properties of different quantifiers with necessarily collective or distributive predicate types. The evidence adduced to support such analyses is based almost exclusively on previous research on English quantifiers (Vendler, 1967; Hogg, 1977; Dowty, 1987; Szabolcsi, 1997; Beghelli and Stowell, 1997; Kearns, 2000; Tunstall, 1998 among many others). It is generally assumed that adults are essentially error-free in their comprehension of sentences containing universal quantifiers, although they are not as sensitive to semantic anomalies as they are to syntactic violations or do not consider them as serious (Ni et al., 1998; Pearlmutter et al., 1999; Braze et al., 2002; Angrilli et al., 2002; Hagoort, 2003; Sorace and Keller, 2005). The aim of this paper is to subject these beliefs to cross-linguistic scrutiny. I begin by reviewing the evidence that the English universal quantifier all has a bias towards a collective interpretation, while each/every is biased towards a distributive interpretation. Pursuing this idea for the analysis of Urdu, I present a simple questionnaire study carried out on native speakers of Urdu. The questionnaire was designed to explore whether native speakers of Urdu are sensitive to the collective/distributive properties of Urdu universal quantifiers, and whether they are differentially sensitive to semantic/syntactic anomalies in quantified statements. I discuss the implications of this for the cross-linguistic analysis of universal quantifiers.