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

      Complementation In English  :  부정사 보문구조를 중심으로 = Infinitive Complement in English

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      In the analysis of English Complement construction, many researches have teen made syntactically and semantically. In this paper, the bare infinitive complement construction was scrutinized both in the classical theory and in the analysis within the f...

      In the analysis of English Complement construction, many researches have teen made syntactically and semantically. In this paper, the bare infinitive complement construction was scrutinized both in the classical theory and in the analysis within the framework of extended standard theory and the controller problems of the infinitive complement were treated. According to Bowers and other linguists, Rosenbaum's theory could not solve the essential problems of the construction because of its inappropriate rules involved and the syntactic levels assumed. In the extended standard theory, the infinitive complement construction has been explained either in S-analysis or in VP analysis. In the sections 2 through 4, the classical theory, S analysis and VP analysis were summarized and studied comparatively.
      The crucial differences between S analysis and VP analysis lie in their phrase structure rule mechanism. In S analysis, their P.S. rules have COMP and PRO categories, whereas in VP analysis they need not have such categories. Using their own rule mechanism, S analysists are dependent on the control theory in order to explain the understood subject of the infinitive and assume some inappropriate rules such as CCMP deletion and S deletion.
      VP analysists need not introduce such rules, but instead they postulate a general principle suggested by us as a proximity principle or coindexing principle suggested by Culicover and Wilkins(1984). In the comparative study of the two analyses and arguments presented, we can conclude that VP analysis is more appropriate for the explanation of the understood subject(the control problem) of to-infinitive complement construction and, with the revised proximity principle applied in D-structure, we can predict the correct controller or understood subject syntactically for the infinitive complement apart from subcategorizational features for complementation of the predicates or verbs.

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • 1. 서론
      • 2. 전통이론에서의 보문구조 분석
      • 3. S분석
      • 4. VP분석
      • 5. to 부정사의 의미상의 주어
      • 1. 서론
      • 2. 전통이론에서의 보문구조 분석
      • 3. S분석
      • 4. VP분석
      • 5. to 부정사의 의미상의 주어
      • 6. VP분석의 이점
      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      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

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼