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

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국생성문법학회 생성문법연구 생성문법연구 제24권 제1호
발행연도
2014.1
수록면
255 - 280 (26page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This study reviews the three types of approaches toward ellipsis thatStainton(2006) categorized based on the view of up to which level afragment is supposed to have elided elements, that is, ellipsissyntactic,ellipsissemantic, and ellipsispragmatic. First, it is argued that a fragmentoccurring without the linguistic antecedent should be regarded as aninstance of ellipsissemantic as Merchant (2007) claimed rather thanellipsispragmatic as Stainton claimed. It is shown that Merchant's view thatseemingly non-propositional fragmentary expressions are actuallypropositions containing hidden free variables fits the perspective of astandard semantic theory such as Montagovian semantics. Second, aftertwo types of fragments occurring as answers to questions in Korean, thatis, case-marked fragments (CMF) and caseless fragments (CLF), areexamined, it is argued that while case-marked fragments can be viewedas syntactic ellipsis, caseless fragmentary answers are not ellipsis, butterm answers in the sense of Stechow & Zimmermann (1984). Specifically, it is claimed that a CLF serves as an argument to thefunction for the preceding wh-question, based on a Functional approachto semantics of questions (Krifka 2001 among others), whereby iteventually forms a semantic proposition which in turn conveys thedeclarative force. It is concluded that there are three types of fragmentsafter all in English and Korean with respect to whether or not thefragments have unpronounced syntactic or semantic structures, which donot coincide with Stainton's three-way distinction.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (25)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0