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 : Sung Ok WON (검색결과 1,434 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
원성옥,안병철 慶南大學校 人文科學硏究所 1997 人文論叢 Vol.9 No.-
ABSTRACTThe basic purpose of the linguistic study is to logically explain the knowledge unconsciously acquired by man. In this process, we've tried to pursue the explanatory validity. Futhermore there has been much change in studying generative transformational grammar of English. At the aspect of the first Standard Theory, in generating the ungrammatical sentences by transformational rules, we need some constraints on universal grammar. Thus Ross suggested that we should need the Island Constraint on movement of constituent from the Island. By doing so. we've progressed the proper description of universal language. Thus I regard a certain structure as Island. I wanna classify the weak and strong island by being extracted or not extracted from Island. When wh-constituent can be extracted, it is called the weak island. Otherwise, it is called the strong island. There are many Islands such as Subject Island, Adjunct Island, Relative Clause Island, Wh-Island, Extraposition Island, That Clause Island, NP Island, Apposition Clause Island. When wh-constituent as an object can't be extracted from Subject Island, Adjunct Island, and Relative clause Island, they are classified a strong island. As for the adjunct wh-word, most of all islands except That Clause Island, and Apposition Clause Island are a strong island. However, the extraction of subject from the island has very various explanation according to linguists. So it will be mentioned later.
-
원성옥,유병수 慶南大學校 人文科學硏究所 1995 人文論叢 Vol.7 No.-
Abstract The purpose of the present paper is to show that the active passive relation can't be accounted for by a passive transformation, and that active and passive sentence are derived from different underlying structures. The argument against a passive transformation presented above has been motivated by two independent hypothesis : (1) Emonds'idea that PASSIVE is a structure-preserving rule ; and (2) Jackendoff's suggestion that semantic function do not change under transformation. This entails that the specification of semantic functions must be independent of tree configurations, which do change under transformation. This means that semantic functions should be interpretable from surface structures.I have suggested that the get passive and be passive have very different underlying structures, and that their semantic differences are reflected in part by the correct assignment of structure to passive type : this is reflected in the fact that the superficial subject is the logical subject of get, but not of be.Hence what we have achieved is a partial understanding of the passive, which most of mysteries yet to be unravelled.
-
원성옥 현대영미어문학회 2000 현대영미어문학 Vol.17 No.2
In this paper we have discussed some problems of subject NP and verb agreement(=VA) that can have argumentation in English syntax. Chapter 2 has presented a nature applicable to verb agreement by the following topics : (1) VA and complex NPs which have quantifiers, (2) VA and units of measurment. Chapter 3 has focalized on the following themes : (1) VA and cleft sentence, (2) VA and relative clause, (3) VA and relative clause with a parethesis. Chapter 4 has dealt with the relation of VA and NPs which have been combined by coordinate conjunction "and." In conclusion I can't establish an absolute rule of VA and subject NP in English grammar.
-
-
-
원성옥,안길진 현대영미어문학회 2001 현대영미어문학 Vol.19 No.3
The main purpose of this paper is to deal with Christophersen's "familiarity and unity", Jespersen's "stages of familiarity" and writers' feature theory of the English articles. The writers' feature theory of indefinite, definite and zero article in English could be explained by the following binary features: ±Specific, ±Generic, ±Definite etc. Christophersen's theory is that there are three contextual bases: explicit contextual basis, implicit contextual basis, and situational basis. Jespersen's familiarity theory is generally stated as follows. StageⅠ, complete unfamiliarity (or ignorance). Stage Ⅱ, nearly complete familiarity. Stage Ⅲ, familiarity is so complete that no article (determinative) is needed. Familarity theory cannot explain all the English article uses because the definite article can be used in the case that it is not familiar to the hearer.
-
원성옥 현대영미어문학회 2001 현대영미어문학 Vol.19 No.1
The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the grammatical properties of double-verb construction, markedness, and a fake or a real co-ordination and V1 to V2 In this paper, two similar or different double-verb constructions are dealt with under the following themes: (1) syntactic constructions of double bare verb stems(=V1 V2) and (2) fake-and and real-and structures. Chapter 2 has argued that these double-verb constructions appear only when both verbs are ″bare verb stems″ The double-verb constructions like ″come1 live2(V1 V2) are closely related to ″come1 and live2 with me, or with my family, or in my house″, and V1 V2 type in an actual usage or in a discourse context. Chapter 3 has discussed the underlying structure with these double bare verb stems. Concentrating on the results of V1 V2 construction, we have claimed that the same effects hold for V1 and V2 or V1 to V2 structures The syntactic and semantic contrasts and analysis between the fake-and and the real-and readings can be understood most sharply in a discourse context. In conclusion the first verb of V1 V2 construction is limited to the motion verbs come, go and the V1 and V2 or V1 to V2 constructions permit a wider range of bare verb stem V1
-
원성옥,이인식 현대영미어문학회 2001 현대영미어문학 Vol.19 No.2
The main purpose of this paper is intended to establish the underlying structure of the English comparative sentence. In this paper, the three different arguments of the underlying structure of the English comparative sentence have been discussed under the following topics: (1) comparative clause as a determiner complement (2) comparative clause as a complement of comparative head (3) structural category of as a complement of comparative head. Chapter 2 has explained that the generative process of "than" comparative clause was not derived from a determiner complement(-er, more). Chapter 3 has argued that comparative clause could be generated by the complement of comparative head. Chapter 4 has maintained that phrasal structural category of the comparative head must be analyzed by x-bar syntax based on a view of generative grammar. In conclusion, syntactic analysis of generating the underlying structure in the English comparative clause have been discussed by all properities of a comparative head in English.
RISS
KISS연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
