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
Cognitive-functional grammarians hold the view that meaning and form in a language are closely related to each other and a difference in form leads to a difference in function and meaning. From this perspective, this paper argues that there are semantic and pragmatic differences between minimal pair sentences that result from the omission or retain of to, for and that in the verb complement clauses in English. Especially based on Haiman’s (1983, 1985) iconicity of distance, it is shown that the closer the main verb is to the complement clause in linguistic distance, the greater and the more direct the verb’s effect on the complement clause is. On empirical grounds, we then claim that there are meaning differences between the minimal pair sentences in terms of directness and indirectness: the sentences where to, for or that is omitted represent more direct influence or control of the matrix verb or subject over the complement clauses than ones that retain to, for or that. In addition, efforts were made to justify this iconicity-based analysis by resorting to the intuition of native speakers of English, who answered the specially designed questionnaire dealing with the semantic and pragmatic differences between the minimal pair sentences at issue.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 형태와 의미의 상호작용
Ⅲ. to, for, that의 생략 여부에 따른 도상성 분석과 검증
Ⅳ. 맺음말
인용문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-840-000877608