Us thinketh hem wonder nyce and straunge: where form and meaning collide

Moon, Kyung-Hwan 국제언어인문학회 2002 인문언어 Vol.3 No.-

This paper deals with a class of Middle English impersonal constructions that involve verbs of two-place argument structure. As is generally understood, the term 'impersonal' is notoriously murky, and after all those researches that have been performed in this area, quite a few issues still remain controversial. The issues we center around in the present study concern the following two. In the type of impersonal constructions we consider, the two arguments-Cause and Experiencer-are both expressed in oblique case, posing the problem of determining which of them functions as the grammatical subject. The issue, however. is not how an argument in oblique case can be taken as the subject: it is well blown that the so called 'dative subject Experiencer' already occurred in Old English. The real issue is why both of the arguments are syntactically realized as nonnominative. The other issue concerns the 3rd-person singular form of the verb. Here again, the crux of the problem may be blurred by the fact that impersonal construction is often defined as one in which the verb has 3rd-person singular form with no apparent nominative W controlling verb concord. But this definition is more nebulous than clear because the notion 'subjectless' is itself highly controversial. Thus, for an expression like me thinketh that-S, it may well be that the verb thinketh ('seems') is 3rd-person singular because the that-clause is the subject. What should be explained of the data brought up here is why the impersonal verb is 3rd-person singular when neither of the NPs associated with it is 3rd person or singular. I argue that we can account for our paradigm examples by looking upon them as 'mixed construction' in which semantic interpretation conflicts with syntactic parsing as a result of case syncretism and gradual establishment of SVO word order. This amounts to saying that the peculiarities of the construction originate with the confused use of impersonal verbs between the sense of 'give an impression' and that of 'receive and impression.'

폴란드어 무주어 재귀구문과 -no/-to 구문의 수동성과 능격성 연구

정정원(Chung Jung Won) 한국슬라브유라시아학회 2010 슬라브학보 Vol.25 No.3

The Polish impersonal reflexives and ?no/to constructions are different from personal reflexives and passive constructions in some morpho-syntactic features. Above all, the Patient in these impersonal constructions has the oblique case, while the Patient in the passive and personal reflexive is promoted and obtains the nominative case. In addition, the Polish impersonal reflexives and ?no/to constructions do not allow the auxiliary verbs and the oblique case denoting the Agent. Therefore, they are classified as an active construction, which do not have grammatical subject, but imply indefinite agents. However, in these constructions the predicate is on the foreground and the Agent is on the background. The backgrounding of the Agent is one of the most important semantic features of the passive construction. Therefore from a semantic point of view these constructions can be classified as a passive construction. The Polish impersonal reflexives and ?no/to constructions can be called as pseudo-ergative constructions, where the Patient is not marked morphologically. From the viewpoint of lexical ergativity, the Polish impersonal reflexives and ?no/to predicates can be derived from the unaccusative and unergative predicates. The Polish impersonal reflexives and ?no/to constructions came from old Polish passive constructions. In their transformation into the active construction, only the Patient obtained the oblique case, but its predicate remains similar to the passive predicate and the meaning of covert indefinite agent is added to the predicate itself. The impersonal reflexives and ?no/to constructions of the other Balto-Slavic languages, like Ukraine, North Russian dialect and Lithuanian, are in different stages of evolution to active construction. Therefore, the Polish impersonal reflexives and ?no/to constructions are the product of evolution, rather than the result of Sprachbund or the influence of Uralic languages.

‘haber’ 복수형 존재구문의 통사적 분석

유은정 서울대학교 라틴아메리카연구소 2015 이베로아메리카硏究 Vol.26 No.2

This study intends to analyze syntactically the pluralization of haber in Spanish existential construction inwhich impersonal verb formis used in standard Spanish. The third person singular verb ‘hay’ used in impersonal existential construction selects a nominal phrase as a direct object. Plural forms of verb ‘haber’ in existential construction are used in many varieties of Spanish. This phenomenon is extensively found in Latin American Spanish. When a plural noun appears as argument in existential construction, the verb undergoes ‘Agree’ with its argument in number feature. I will analyze impersonal existential construction and pluralization construction under the same syntactic structure, proposing that locative prepositional phrase occupies the preverbal position as quirky subject. I claimthat the difference in verbal formobserved in two constructions comes from φ-feature agreement of T. Concretely, T’s φ-features checking with quirky subject induce default agreement on T(a third person singular form) in impersonal existential construction. The pluralization construction is formed by partial agreement of T’s φ-features. 본고에서는 스페인어의 비인칭 존재구문(impersonal existential construction)이 중남미의 많은 지역에서 haber동사의 복수형으로 사용되는 현상을 구조적으로 분석해 보고자 한다. 비인칭 존재구문에서는 3인칭 단수의 비인칭 동사 ‘hay’가 존재의 의미를 표현하는 동사로서사용되며, 동사를 뒤따르는 명사구는 직접목적어로 기능한다. 그런데 중남미의 여러 국가들과스페인 일부 지역에서 존재동사를 뒤따르는 명사구 논항이 복수형으로 나타날 때, 동사가 이명사구에 일치하여 복수형으로 굴절된 형태로 사용되는 ‘haber 복수화(pluralization)’ 현상이널리 확대되어 나타난다. haber 복수형 구문에서 동사가 직접목적어인 명사구 논항과 수 자질에서 일치하는 특성을 보이는 것이다. 이러한 현상을 비인칭 존재구문과 비교하여 구조적으로분석해 보고자 한다. 이를 위해 비인칭 존재구문과 복수화 구문은 공히 장소어구를 기격주어로취하는 구조로 분석한다. 구체적으로, 비인칭 존재구문은 기격 주어와 T의 Φ-자질의 자동 일치(default agreement)를 통해 형태적으로 3인칭 단수로 실현되며 복수화 구문은 T의 Φ-자질의 부분 일치(partial agreement)를 통해 3인칭 복수로 실현된 것으로 분석하여, 두 구문의 도출을 T의 Φ-자질 일치의 차이에 기인하는 현상으로 논의하고자 한다.

Case Frames of the Old English Impersnal Cnstruction: Conceptual Semantic Analysis

Jun, Jong-Sup Korean Society for Language and Information 2005 언어와 정보 Vol.9 No.2

The impersonal or psyc-predicate construction in Old English (=OE) poses a special challenge for most case theories in generative linguistics. In the OE impersonal construction, the experiencer argument is marked by dative, accusative, or nominative, whereas the theme is marked by nominative, genitive, or accusative, or by a PP. The combinations of possible cases for experiencer and theme are not random, bringing about daunting complexity for possible and impossible case frames. In this paper, I develop a conceptual semantic case theory (a la Jackendoff 1990, 1997, 2002; Yip, Maling, and Jackendoff 1987) to provide a unified account for the complicated case frames of the OE impersonal construction. In the conceptual semantic case theory, syntax and semantics have their own independent case assignment principles. For impersonal verbs in OE, I propose that UG leave an option of determining either syntactic or semantic case to lexical items. This proposal opens a new window for the OE impersonal construction, in that it naturally explains both possible and impossible case frames of the construction.

Case Frames of the Old English ImpersonalConstruction: Conceptual Semantic Analysis

전종섭 한국언어정보학회 2005 언어와 정보 Vol.9 No.2

The impersonal or psyc-predicate construction in Old English (=OE) poses a special challenge for most case theories in generative linguistics. In the OE impersonal construction, the experiencer argument is marked by dative, accusative, or nominative, whereas the theme is marked by nominative, genitive, or accusative, or by a PP. The combinations of possible cases for experiencer and theme are not random, bringing about daunting complexity for possible and impossible case frames. In this paper, I develop a conceptual semantic case theory (a la Jackendoff 1990, 1997, 2002; Yip, Maling, and Jackendoff 1987) to provide a unified account for the complicated case frames of the OE impersonal construction. In the conceptual semantic case theory, syntax and semantics have their own independent case assignment principles. For impersonal verbs in OE, I propose that UG leave an option of determining either syntactic or semantic case to lexical items. This proposal opens a new window for the OE impersonal construction, in that it naturally explains both possible and impossible case frames of the construction.

유형론과 한국어 연구의 상관관계 -한국어 구문 유형론에서 경계해야 할 것들-

목정수 ( Mok Jung-soo ) 국어학회 2022 국어학 Vol.- No.101

한국어를 국어 자체로 연구하는 것보다 유형론적 관점에서 다른 많은 언어들과의 비교를 통해서 연구하는 것이 갖는 장점은 많다. 무엇보다 한국어의 위상을 객관적으로 가늠할 수 있고, 한국어의 보편성과 특수성을 동시에 논할 수 있다. 그러나 다른 언어들을 통해 나온 유형론적 작업 결과를 한국어에 무조건 적용하는 것은 위험하다. 유형론적 작업에 동원된 기준이 객관성을 확보하지 못한 경우가 있을 수 있고, 한국어에 적용할 때도 한국어의 기본 기술을 무시하고 왜곡할 수 있는 여지가 있기 때문이다. 본고는 이처럼 유형론적 관점에서 한국어 구문 연구를 할 때 우리가 경계해야 할 점이 무엇인가를 타동 구문의 틀 속에서 살펴본다. 구체적으로는 소유동사 구문, 심리동사 구문, 피동사 구문을 중심으로 그들의 통사·의미적 특성을 고려하여 기본 문형을 어떻게 설정하는 것이 바람직한가에 대해서 논의한다. 소유 구문, 심리 구문, 가능 피동 구문의 기본 구조를 [NP1-에게 NP2-가 V]가 아니라 [NP1-은 NP2-가 V-어미]로, 양보하여 [NP1-이 NP2-가 V-어미]로 설정하면, 이 [NP1-은 NP2-가 V-어미] 구문은 [NP1-은 NP2-를 V-어미] 구문과 짝이 되어 한국어 타동 구문의 연속체를 이룬다는 사실을 밝힐 수 있다. 더 나아가 이를 세계 언어유형론 학계에 환류시켜 정렬 유형론의 발전에 이바지할 수 있다. 또한 비인칭 구문에 대한 유형론적 연구를 참조하고 한국어의 현상을 있는 그대로 잘 관찰하면, 한국어에도 이른바 비인칭 구문 ‘비(가) 오다’ 구성을 설정할 수 있다는 것을 보일 수 있다. It is better and more advantageous to study Korean by comparing it with many other languages from a typological perspective rather than to study Korean for and by itself. Typological studies can help us gauge the objective status of Korean among the languages of the world and simultaneously to recognize the generality/universality and particularity/peculiarity of Korean. But we should not take a leap of faith in typological researches and always caution ourselves against the distortions of Korean through the blind application of results of typological studies to Korean. Keeping these in mind, we try to make some remarks for the precise and consistent study of Korean constructions, focused on possessive verb constructions, psych verb constructions, potential passive constructions, and impersonal constructions. In conclusion, the basic sentence pattern of those constructions would rather be [NP1-은 NP2-가 V-어미] or [NP1-이 NP2-가 V-어미] than [NP1-에게 NP2-가 V]. Possessive verbs and psych verbs and potential passive verbs in Korean have many things in common. First, they are all two-place predicates. Second, they require NP1 as a subject and NP2 as an object whose semantic roles are possessor/experiencer and theme, respectively. If these new discoveries were turned out to be true and were reported to alignment typology, we could establish a new alignment typology where Korean is described as a ‘split-O pattern’ language. Last but not least, we can say that there are impersonal constructions in Korean by referring to the typological studies on the impersonal constructions in indo-european languages. For example, ‘비(가) 오다(rain)’ is a vP, or a support/ light verb construction in which the constituent ‘비(가)’ is not a true subject, but a complement as a predicative noun.

On impersonal constructions in Uyghur and Mongolian

( Muzappar Abdurusul ),( Gao Lianhua ) 한국알타이학회 2018 알타이학보 Vol.0 No.28

It is a well-known fact that most Altaic languages display similar sentence structure and word order. However if we drill further into the deeper structures of these languages, we can figure out some peculiar features which are sui generis. Impersonal constructions are many varieties of types, such as agentless gerunds, agentless passives, existential sentences, and modal sentences etc. Since most Turkic languages are pro-drop in nature, omitting the pronominal subject also helps to form impersonal constructions. Contrarily, most Mongolic languages are non- pro-drop and lack enclitic negative marker as -mA (-ma/-ma). As a result, different methods are used to form affirmative or negative impersonal constructions in Mongolic and Manchu- Tungusic languages. This paper will compare the structure of impersonal constructions in these languages. Here I shall limit my discussion to Uyghur and Mongolian language facts.

고대영어의 물주구문에서 주어구문으로의 변화에 대한 국면분석

김대익 언어과학회 2017 언어과학연구 Vol.0 No.83

This paper attempts to account for the mechanism of the impersonal-to-personal shift in the history of English under the phase- based system of minimalism. Previous treatments discussing this shift have centered on reanalysis, the loss of lexical case or the introduction of structural case, mainly resulting from the change of morphological cases. However, in this paper, with the introduction of the light verb phrase vP in the Middle/Present English, it is proposed that the impersonal to personal shift is attributed to the change of the phase domain in the minimalist architecture from the mono phase, CP in the impersonal constructions, to the duel phases, CP and vP in the transitive constructions. .

팀신뢰 연구의 현황 및 이슈 정립과 향후 연구방안에 대한 제언

박원우(Won Woo Park),안성익(Seong Ik Ahn) 한국경영학회 2010 經營學硏究 Vol.39 No.4

Although the importance of trust has long been recognized by social scientists, the studies on trust flourished only after 1990s in the organizational research. Not surprisingly, there are some reasons why trust had not been a main topic of organizational research until the 1990s. On the one hand, as the hierarchy of an organization was more flattened, the organization reasonably needed to substitute something for the hierarchy system as an organizational control and it started to focus on trust. On the other hand, as more organizations adopt a team-based structure, they realized the need for trust among team members for team effectiveness. In the line of reasoning, trust can be viewed as two following perspectives: trust as a substitute for hierarchy-based control and trust for team effectiveness. Considered the recent review studies on trust, such as Dirks & Ferrin (2001), Dirks & Ferrin (2002), Colquitt et al. (2007), and Burke et al. (2007), most of the studies on trust were conducted in terms of the former perspective: trust as a substitute for the hierarchybased organizational control. In contrast, the latter perspective has been shed little light on. Specifically, even though there were theoretically or practically implicit agreements that trust should be something indispensible for team effectiveness, research on trust has never been extended to trust for enhancement of team effectiveness (hereafter, team trust), and thus the concept of trust has never been fully developed. For the reasons, the research on team trust starts at the point, where research on trust and research on team are overlapped each other, not only for the development of two fields but also for the establishment of team trust as a new academic field. To the end, - to conceptualize a new term, team trust, on the balanced consideration of trust research and team research - we investigated and reviewed the trust-related studies conducted in team context in the following manners. First, we investigated what types of team trust are related to team effectiveness. Reviewing all of the trust-related studies, we classified team trust in terms of two dimensions: level (which is either individual- or team-level) and trust direction (which is either vertical or horizontal trust). Second, we analyzed how team trust functions in Input-Mediator-Outcome (IMO) model, one of team effectiveness models, classified all of the antecedents and the consequences of team trust, and found that team trust might function as an emergent state in the IMO model. After investigations and reviews, we finally concluded that team trust could be considered to be team members’ shared trust to each other, not individual team member’s trust, and that team trust might have effects on team effectiveness and function as an emergent state in the IMO model. We also found two important limitations of the existing studies on team trust. First, although there were several types of trust relationships in a team in terms of the level analysis, the existing studies have mainly investigated only one type and not cared about the difference among them. Second, even though impersonal as well as personal trust could be considered for the conceptualization of team trust, the existing concept of trust has been restricted only to personal trust. On the basis of investigations and findings, we finally proposed team trust as a multi-dimensional construct. Since teams in an organization can be viewed as not only the groups composed of team members but also the sub-systems of the organization, we could newly conceptualize team trust as a multi-dimensional construct and definitely define team trust as trust to team entity which includes both personal and impersonal facets. Moreover, for the model elaboration, we divided the facets of teams into two sub-categories. For the personal facet of team, we divided it into trust in team leader and trust in coworkers, focusing on the difference between leaders’ and members

Hybrid Impersonal Constructions: The Battlefield of Sound and Sense

문경환 한국중세근세영문학회 2010 중세르네상스 영문학 Vol.18 No.1

Throughout its history the English language has seen a series of convulsions among impersonal verbs whereby some of them fell out of the word hoard while others survived either by recasting themselves into ordinary (personal) verbs or by taking on the form of stock phrases. The process of transition from an impersonal to a personal verb often involved a situation in which a potential pseudo-subject (or logical subject) in an oblique case promotes to the status of genuine (nominative) subject, demoting what was previously the syntactic subject to an oblique case. Sometimes, however, the process of reshuffling got checked by the strong tension between the impersonal and the personal forces of the verb that are tightly pitted against each other, neither winning over the other. While the contest was pending in that fashion and the grammar of the language has not yet arrived so far in development as to settle the matter, arbitrary compromises are effected between the contenders, often eventuating in peculiar constructions. Our discussion centers around a group of such peculiar constructions, touching on some points that, despite previous studies, still seem to beg clarification or at least redefinition.