http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 정하경 (검색결과 75 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
정하경 한국러시아문학회 2019 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.66 No.-
This paper argues that the early loss of old synthetic past tenses such as aorist and imperfect in Old Russian resulted in various syntactic properties of the East Slavic languages, which have not been linked to the tense system change in the literature. I analyze the loss of synthetic past tenses as reflecting tense feature weakening in T0, which is directly related to the lack of V-to-T movement and verb-adjacent clitics in Old Russian. There also arose an ambiguity in terms of the interpretability of agreement features in the be-auxiliary in the old perfect tense, due to the loss of the synthetic past tenses. This ambiguity triggered a subject reanalysis of the be-auxiliary on the model of the surface string in third person perfect tense, in which the be-auxiliary was always null. The be-auxiliary-as-subject was lost as a result of the competition with strong subject pronouns. I identify the subject reanalysis of the be-auxiliary as the loss of referential null subjects. Thus, the tense system change is indirectly responsible for the loss of the be-auxiliary and referential null subjects. Cross-linguistic evidence also supports this conclusion: Bulgarian still uses old synthetic past tenses and also maintains verb raising to T0, verb-adjacent clitics, the be-auxiliary, and null subjects. Polish and Czech, which lost aorist about 300 years later than Russian, do not have verb raising and verb-adjacent clitics that are directly related to the tense feature, but maintains those syntactic features that are indirectly related to T0, i.e., the be-auxiliary and null subjects.
-
정하경 한국러시아문학회 2015 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.49 No.-
This paper investigates the null subject system of Old Novgorodian dialects (OND), as reflected in Novgorod birch bark letters. The data shows that l-past AUX and overt subjects are complementarily distributed in the 1st/2nd person, while the use of null subjects is prevalent in the 3rd person. In non-past, in the 1st/2nd person, null subjects are more favored than overt ones while a null subject is absolutely predominant in the 3rd person. The OND null subject system based on person split is a prime case that instantiates Borer's proposal of agreement as a subject (1986). As D-feature and agreement features in Tense may be checked in two ways (by either overt subjects in Spec,TP or V-to-T movement), the complementary distribution of overt subjects and AUX in 1st/2nd person l-past sentences may be interpreted as a competition between two equivalent strategies to check D-feature in Tense. In the 3rd person, the lack of overt subjects and AUX is normative and overt pronoun subjects are only pragmatically motivated. This contrast of null subject patterns between the 1st/2nd person and 3rd person can be reduced to the [+person] and [-person] opposition, which is parallel to the cross-linguistic contrast between canonical null subject languages with rich agreement and radical subject languages with no agreement. Under this analysis, pragmatic motivations traditionally assumed for the use of null/overt subjects are secondary. The complementary distribution of AUX and overt pronominal subjects is not pragmatically motivated in essence but results from the competition between two different grammars. The loss of null subjects that were licensed by person agreement in association with D-feature and the loss of V-to-T movement, which was also triggered by the D-feature in Tense, are parametric since both of them resulted from the change in how the D-feature in Tense is checked in Russian. This is a consequence of the tense system change in Russian, by which Old Russian lost inflected aspectual past tenses and came to denote past tense by means of participial forms in -l.
-
정하경 한국슬라브어학회 2017 슬라브어연구 Vol.22 No.2
고대러시아어는 현대동슬라브어와 달리 제2위치 접어체계를 가지고 있었다. 기존 연구에서는 절 소사나 대명사적 접어와 더불어 l-완료시제의 조동사 byti ‘be’의 현재형(AUX)이 이 접어 범주에 속하는 것으로 여겨져 왔으나, 본고에서는 고대북부러시아방언 AUX의 경우 그 형태통사적 특성을 고려할 때 접어가 아니라 약대명사로 보는 것이 더 적절함을 주장하였다. 나아가, 대명사적 접어가 상이한 기능소의 지정어에 위치하고 있으며, 표면적으로 대명사적 접어의 오른쪽에 인접한 AUX는 그것이 처음 투사된 위치인 AUXP의 핵에 머물러 있음을 제안하였다. 이 제안은 2P 제약에 대한 PF-필터링과 더불어 표층 어순의 여러 특징을 설명할 수 있다는 이점이 있다. AUX의 이러한 형태통사적 특징은 아직 AUX가 고대북부러시아방언에서 아직 접어로 완전히 문법화를 이루지 못했음을 시사하며, 이는 러시아어를 특징짓는V-to-Infl 인상 결여 혹은 D-자질 하강으로 일반화될 수 있다. This paper examines the morphosyntactic status of the l-perfect auxiliary (byti ‘be’) in Old North Russian, focusing on whether this category can be construed as a second position enclitic, as it has been suggested in the literature. Based on the auxiliary’s phonological, morphological, and syntactic features reflected in manuscripts, such as Old Novgorodian birch bark letters, I argue that the Old North Russian be-auxiliary is not a full-pledged clitic but should rather be identified as a weak pronoun. I also account for the auxiliary’s position right adjacent to pronominal clitics by proposing that the auxiliary remains where it first merges in the structure, not raising to a functional head. I propose that the auxiliary in situ is best explained by D-feature lowering or the lack of V-to-Infl movement in this language, which is also supported by the lack of V-to-Infl movement in Modern Russian.
-
-
-
-
정하경 한국슬라브어학회 2019 슬라브어연구 Vol.24 No.2
This paper investigates the word order variation involving the negation marker ne, the be-auxilairy, and participles in Old Church Slavonic (a version of Old Bulgarian of the 9th-11th centuries) in the context of parametric variation and grammar competition. The Old Church Slavonic word orders are compared with the patterns observed in colloquial Old Russian and Modern South Slavic languages. Two word order patterns are identified to have derived from two distinct grammars: ‘Aux-Neg-Part’ from the AuxP-over-NegP structure (Old Russian) vs. ‘Neg-Aux-Part’ from the NegP-over-AuxP structure (Modern South Slavic). Both structures are operative in Old Church Slavonic, which I analyze as grammar competition. I suggest that the newer grammar with the NegP-over-AuxP structure arose in Old Church Slavonic along with the clitic system change in this language in the 9th and 10th centuries, while Old Russian, which already began its own developmental path separately from Old South Slavic before the 11th century, only maintained the older Common Slavic grammar with the AuxP-over-NegP structure. As a result of grammar competition in Old South Slavic (reflected in Old Church Slavonic), only the newer grammar was inherited to Modern South Slavic. .
-
-
정하경 한국러시아문학회 2015 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.49 No.-
This paper investigates the null subject system of Old Novgorodian dialects (OND), as reflected in Novgorod birch bark letters. The data shows that l-past AUX and overt subjects are complementarily distributed in the 1st/2nd person, while the use of null subjects is prevalent in the 3rd person. In non-past, in the 1st/2nd person, null subjects are more favored than overt ones while a null subject is absolutely predominant in the 3rd person. The OND null subject system based on person split is a prime case that instantiates Borer``s proposal of agreement as a subject (1986). As D-feature and agreement features in Tense may be checked in two ways (by either overt subjects in Spec,TP or V-to-T movement), the complementary distribution of overt subjects and AUX in 1st/2nd person l-past sentences may be interpreted as a competition between two equivalent strategies to check D-feature in Tense. In the 3rd person, the lack of overt subjects and AUX is normative and overt pronoun subjects are only pragmatically motivated. This contrast of null subject patterns between the 1st/2nd person and 3rd person can be reduced to the [+person] and [-person] opposition, which is parallel to the cross-linguistic contrast between canonical null subject languages with rich agreement and radical subject languages with no agreement. Under this analysis, pragmatic motivations traditionally assumed for the use of null/overt subjects are secondary. The complementary distribution of AUX and overt pronominal subjects is not pragmatically motivated in essence but results from the competition between two different grammars. The loss of null subjects that were licensed by person agreement in association with D-feature and the loss of V-to-T movement, which was also triggered by the D-feature in Tense, are parametric since both of them resulted from the change in how the D-feature in Tense is checked in Russian. This is a consequence of the tense system change in Russian, by which Old Russian lost inflected aspectual past tenses and came to denote past tense by means of participial forms in -l.
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
