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.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Since Chomsky formulated the Binding Theory, the characteristically invariant form of anaphora in many languages provides a crucial link between morphology and binding. It has been argued that invariance reflects lack of those speculations for gender, number and person which enable pronouns to have independent reference. Unlike pronouns, anaphora must therefore always be bound because binding represent the conditions under which reference is inherited. Then, Burzio shows that the true cross-linguistic generalization for pronoun is complementary with anaphora, and not 'not locally bound' by Chomsky's principle B. In this article I examined how well or badly his proposals fit in Russian.
As I have discussed above, Burzio's statement that an anaphor has no features, is too general and somewhat wrong in the view of Russian anaphora, because Russian reflexive possessive свой has distinct features depending on person, number and gender. He does not even mention case at all which Russian anaphora retain. Moreover, to the contrary of hierarchical order of choice for NPs by Burzio, the choice among NPs (anaphor, pronominal and R-expression), according to Timberlake, depends on the type of sentence, governing verb and so on. Lastly, not only do we need to give a different notions for principle A and B as Burzio argues, but also we need to verify local domains in dealing with Russian anaphora (reciprocal and reflexive). As shown above, therefore, the conditions of Russian anaphora are too various and delicate to simply generalize as Burzio does.
As I have discussed above, Burzio's statement that an anaphor has no features, is too general and somewhat wrong in the view of Russian anaphora, because Russian reflexive possessive свой has distinct features depending on person, number and gender. He does not even mention case at all which Russian anaphora retain. Moreover, to the contrary of hierarchical order of choice for NPs by Burzio, the choice among NPs (anaphor, pronominal and R-expression), according to Timberlake, depends on the type of sentence, governing verb and so on. Lastly, not only do we need to give a different notions for principle A and B as Burzio argues, but also we need to verify local domains in dealing with Russian anaphora (reciprocal and reflexive). As shown above, therefore, the conditions of Russian anaphora are too various and delicate to simply generalize as Burzio does.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. Burzio의 대용어(Anaphora)에 관한 분석
Ⅲ. Burzio의 수정된 결속이론
Ⅳ. 러시아어 대용어의 국부 영역 (局部 領域, local domain)
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Zero Anaphora in Korean
언어
1979 .12
-
Do So is Shallow
생성문법연구
2010 .01
-
Toward a Functional Theory of Anaphora
어학연구
1978 .12
-
ON THE TYPOLOGY OF ZERO ANAPHORA
어학연구
1984 .06
-
Anaphora Resolution Strategies in L2 Reading
영어학
2018 .12
-
On the Understood Object in English
생성문법연구
2014 .01
-
THE SYNTAX OF KOREAN ANAPHORA
어학연구
1984 .06
-
연상조응의 문법범주화에 대한 이론적 정합성 검토
어문론집
2007 .09
-
Pronominal Anaphora in Korea
어학연구
1978 .06
-
A Pragmatic Alternative to Syntactic Accounts of Anaphora
담화와인지
2003 .12
-
Zero Anaphora in Spoken and Written Discourse
담화와인지
1998 .06
-
Preferred Interpretations of Anaphora
담화·인지언어학회 학술대회 발표논문집
2004 .04
-
韓漢“零形回指”對照分析
중국어문학논집
2016 .10
-
Topicality in Anaphora
언어
1980 .06
-
A Minimalist Approach to English Anaphora
언어
1994 .12
-
Syntactic Prominence in Anaphora
언어
1980 .06
-
Pragmatic Reduction of the Binding Conditions with respect to Anaphora Interpretations in English
어학연구
2005 .12
-
Binding and Control in Korean : Structural Restrictions on Anaphora in a Non-configurational Language
언어
1981 .06
-
대용화의 논리 형태
성곡논총
1990 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-309-018911816