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
한국언어과학회 언어과학 언어과학 제17권 제4호
발행연도
2010.1
수록면
229 - 248 (20page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Hurford's Constraint (HC) states that a disjunction A or B is infelicitous when its disjuncts are in an entailment relation. Singh (2006, 2008) argues that HC must be modified in two ways: (i) HC is to be checked incrementally at the basic meaning of each disjunct to the right before it can be strengthened by implicature, and (ii) HC requires inconsistency, not non-entailment, between disjuncts. These modifications are, however, empirical generalizations entirely drawn from linguistic data, and do not provide explanations why they should be so, as Singh (2006) himself admits. The aim of this paper is to provide explanations to Singh's generalizations. I argue that Singh's two generalizations can be explained under the assumption that a disjunction has the property of a correction construction. First, inconsistency between a corrective claim and its antecedent in a correction construction is almost a truism; otherwise, it is not a correction. Second, I propose that a corrective claim is an argument in that it is a reason advanced for the falsity of its antecedent, and show that only asserted, not implicated, meaning is qualified as an argument. It follows then that when inconsistency is checked between disjuncts, only the asserted meaning of the second disjunct counts, which corresponds to a corrective claim in a correction construction

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (11)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

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

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0