메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
Hang-Jin Yoon (University of Suwon)
저널정보
한국영어학회 영어학 영어학 Volume.17 Number.2
발행연도
2017.7
수록면
307 - 329 (23page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
English allows certain verbs to take a small clause complement (SC). Epistemic verbs like consider and perceptional verbs like see are such verbs. However, clausal complements of these verbs show a syntactic difference in allowing passivization of their subjects. Recently, J-E Lee (2013) proposes that a unified analysis for extraction patterns in SCs and Acc-gerunds may be attained with formal feature based accounts. However, although the Acc-ing gerund disallows its subject to undergo passivization, it behaves differently from the SC in allowing passivization of the Acc-ing gerund itself. Moreover, the participial complement (PC) of perception verbs allows passivization of the embedded subject just like the clausal complement of epistemic verbs, indicating that the clause is non-nominal. However, it also allows that of the whole complement clause as the Acc-ing gerund does. It appears to be paradoxical; it behaves like non-nominals as well as like nominals. The purpose of this paper is to examine previous accounts and make a proposal on the structures of the bare infinitive complement (BIC) of perception verbs and the PC with a comparison of them with the Acc-ing gerund. It is argued that the head of the BIC should not have Case feature whereas that of the Acc-ing gerund should on the basis of availability of passivization of the latter and unavailability of passivization of the former. It is proposed that an apparent paradox of the PC can be solved with an assumption that the PC indeed consists of a noun and an appositive participial clause.

목차

1. Introduction
2. Previous Accounts
3. No Case Feature in Perception SCs
4. Apparent Paradox of Participial Complements
5. Proposal
6. Conclusion
References

참고문헌 (34)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2018-705-001014538