지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper aims to examine the semantic and structural differences between the double-object construction and its prepositional counterpart based on Haiman's (1980, 1983, 1985) iconicity theory. The alternation phenomena have attracted a great deal of attention, and a range of proposals have been put forward to account for them. In particular, an attempt has been made among the majority of scholars to differentiate the double-object construction and its corresponding dative construction by resorting to the differences in verb meaning and those in relation between arguments.
To achieve the above goal, in this paper, we attempt to identify the subtle meaning differences between the two constructions by way of the distance principle of the iconicity theory: "the linguistic distance between expressions corresponds to the conceptual distance between them." Namely, we argue that the double-object construction is used when the agent and the recipient are conceptually close, while the dative counterpart is used when the conceptual distance between the two is remote. This line of approach seems to be appealing in that it can explain the differences between the constructions more explicitly and systematically and in that it can also account for other alternation phenomena such as locative and conative constructions in a similar context.
To achieve the above goal, in this paper, we attempt to identify the subtle meaning differences between the two constructions by way of the distance principle of the iconicity theory: "the linguistic distance between expressions corresponds to the conceptual distance between them." Namely, we argue that the double-object construction is used when the agent and the recipient are conceptually close, while the dative counterpart is used when the conceptual distance between the two is remote. This line of approach seems to be appealing in that it can explain the differences between the constructions more explicitly and systematically and in that it can also account for other alternation phenomena such as locative and conative constructions in a similar context.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 여격교체구문에 대한 기존의 분석
Ⅲ. 도상성이론과 거리의 원리
Ⅳ. 거리의 원리와 여격교체현상
Ⅴ. 마무리
인용문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Iconicity of Argument Alternation Structures in English and Korean
언어과학
2007 .01
-
영어 논항 교체 구문의 도상적 분석
영어학
2004 .09
-
한국인 L2화자의 여격 구문 인식에 관한 연구
새한영어영문학
2015 .08
-
도상성 이론의 고찰 및 영어 표현의 도상성 연구
외국학연구
2012 .01
-
Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions for the Dative Alternation
영어학
2004 .03
-
여격동사의 논항교체 현상과 온라인 유형구성
언어
2001 .09
-
Syntax and Statistical Learning in the Language Development of the English Dative Alternation
영어영문학연구
2013 .01
-
Dative Alternation in Korean L2 English Learners’ Essay Writing
담화와인지
2016 .02
-
Lexical Derivation of Triadic Dative Verbs in English
담화와인지
2006 .12
-
Iconicity in English Coordination
새한영어영문학
2008 .05
-
A Lexical Feature-based Analysis for the English Dative Alternation
영어영문학
2019 .11
-
영어와 한국어 삼항 술어 구문 비교 분석
언어과학
2009 .01
-
Psych Verb Constructions and Case Alternation in Korean (/Japanese)
언어
2009 .12
-
Against Adjunct Analyses of the Secondary Argument in the Double Object Construction and the Oblique Dative Construction
영어영문학연구
2007 .01
-
영어 여격구문의 비대칭 현상과 문미 비중 원리
영어학
2013 .12
-
Iconicity of the Construction with a Complement Clause in Old English
담화와인지
1997 .12
-
이중목적어구문과 여격구문의 통사구조
새한영어영문학
2015 .11
-
이중목적어 구문과 상적 변화
언어과학연구
2020 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
국어에 내재한 도상성의 양상과 의미 특성
임지룡
한글
2004
.12
어순에 반영된 인지적 특성
임지룡
,
김령환
한글
2013
.06
부사절과 관형사절의 수식
김건희
어문학
2012
.12
A Linguistic Adaptation Theory-Based Approach to Singular They in English
Hwang
,
Kyu-Hong
,
Li Jing-Ying
새한영어영문학
2019
.08
영어 자유관계절과 종속의문절의 차이에 대한 한국 고등학생의 인식과 D-FREI 모형
박동빈
,
황규홍
새한영어영문학
2017
.11
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0