RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      Wh-분열문의 통사적 변이와 복합성 원리: 코퍼스 연구 = Syntactic Variation of Wh-Clefts and the Complexity Principle: A Corpus Study.

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A105406834

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      This study examines variable usage between to-infinitives and bare-infinitives in wh-cleft sentences in English. There are a number of previous studies dealing with either formal and functional analyses or regional and stylistic variation of wh-clefts. This study, however, attempts to find underlying factors determining the distribution of the two alternatives and investigates whether the so-called ‘complexity principle’ proposed by Rohdenburg (1998, 2000) is valid. Mair and Winkle (2012) used ten ICE corpora as an attempt to verify two out of four hypotheses of Rohdenburg’s principle. Although their findings partially supported Rohdenburg’s claims, the paucity of data turned out to neither prove nor disprove them. This study uses a much larger corpus, the COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English), and shows that all four hypotheses of the complexity principle are valid: that is, the to-infinitive is more likely to occur, (i) if do is in more complex forms (did, done, doing) rather than in the simple present forms (do, does), (ii) if some elements intervene between do and be, (iii) if be is in the past tense (was) rather than in the simple present tense (is), or (iv) if be occurs in complex forms (e.g. will be, would be) rather than in the simple present or past forms (is, was). Furthermore, this study proposes and justifies a new hypothesis for the complexity principle: that is, the to-infinitive is more likely to occur, (v) if the intervening material between what and do are more complex (or lengthy).
      번역하기

      This study examines variable usage between to-infinitives and bare-infinitives in wh-cleft sentences in English. There are a number of previous studies dealing with either formal and functional analyses or regional and stylistic variation of wh-clefts...

      This study examines variable usage between to-infinitives and bare-infinitives in wh-cleft sentences in English. There are a number of previous studies dealing with either formal and functional analyses or regional and stylistic variation of wh-clefts. This study, however, attempts to find underlying factors determining the distribution of the two alternatives and investigates whether the so-called ‘complexity principle’ proposed by Rohdenburg (1998, 2000) is valid. Mair and Winkle (2012) used ten ICE corpora as an attempt to verify two out of four hypotheses of Rohdenburg’s principle. Although their findings partially supported Rohdenburg’s claims, the paucity of data turned out to neither prove nor disprove them. This study uses a much larger corpus, the COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English), and shows that all four hypotheses of the complexity principle are valid: that is, the to-infinitive is more likely to occur, (i) if do is in more complex forms (did, done, doing) rather than in the simple present forms (do, does), (ii) if some elements intervene between do and be, (iii) if be is in the past tense (was) rather than in the simple present tense (is), or (iv) if be occurs in complex forms (e.g. will be, would be) rather than in the simple present or past forms (is, was). Furthermore, this study proposes and justifies a new hypothesis for the complexity principle: that is, the to-infinitive is more likely to occur, (v) if the intervening material between what and do are more complex (or lengthy).

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • 1. 서론
      • 2. 복합성 원리와 선행연구
      • 3. COCA 분석
      • 3.1. ‘Do’의 형태와 초점구조의 상관관계
      • 3.2. ‘Do’와 ‘Be’ 사이의 삽입어구의 존재와 초점구조의 상관관계
      • 1. 서론
      • 2. 복합성 원리와 선행연구
      • 3. COCA 분석
      • 3.1. ‘Do’의 형태와 초점구조의 상관관계
      • 3.2. ‘Do’와 ‘Be’ 사이의 삽입어구의 존재와 초점구조의 상관관계
      • 3.3. Be의 시제와 초점구조의 상관관계
      • 3.4. ‘Be’의 복합성과 초점구조의 상관관계
      • 3.5. ‘What’과 ‘Do’ 사이의 삽입어구의 길이와 초점구조의 상관관계
      • 4. 결론
      • 참고문헌
      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 Bock, J. K, "Toward a Cognitive Psychology of Syntax: Information Processing Contributions to Sentence Formulation" 89 : 1-47, 1982

      2 Allerton, D. J, "The Greater Precision of Spoken Language: Four Examples from English" 72 : 470-478, 1991

      3 Davies, M., "The Corpus of Contemporary American English" 520 Million Words 2008

      4 Akmajian, A, "On Deriving Cleft Sentences from Pseudo-Cleft Sentences" 1 : 149-168, 1970

      5 Collins, P. C., "Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Constructions in English" Routledge 2015

      1 Bock, J. K, "Toward a Cognitive Psychology of Syntax: Information Processing Contributions to Sentence Formulation" 89 : 1-47, 1982

      2 Allerton, D. J, "The Greater Precision of Spoken Language: Four Examples from English" 72 : 470-478, 1991

      3 Davies, M., "The Corpus of Contemporary American English" 520 Million Words 2008

      4 Akmajian, A, "On Deriving Cleft Sentences from Pseudo-Cleft Sentences" 1 : 149-168, 1970

      5 Collins, P. C., "Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Constructions in English" Routledge 2015

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2027 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2021-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2018-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2015-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2011-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2009-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2007-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2005-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2002-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      1999-07-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.39 0.39 0.34
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.33 0.34 0.709 0.06
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼