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 제15권 제3호
발행연도
2005.1
수록면
275 - 292 (18page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
It is usually known that Case markers are deletable, while Postpositions are not. It makes sense that Postpositions cannot be deleted, since they have their own inherent semantic contents. However, there is a context in which Postpositions must be elided--relative clauses. This paper explores the possibility of accounting for the seemingly contradictory phenomena by the strategy 'delete an offending constituent as a last resort'. This paper points out that we run into contradiction when PPs are relativized in Korean and Japanese, for Korean/Japanese Postpositions are affixes but Korean and Japanese have no overt relative pronoun. If the No Tempering Condition (NTC) were an unviolable constraint at the Syntax-PF interface, in Korean there would be no way to generate a sentence in which PP is relativized. Fortunately, the NTC is violable at the syntax-PF interface: deletion is available as 'a last resort'. The gist of the claim is that if a sentence is well-formed, P deletion must not take place, and if a sentence is ill-formed, P deletion may be used to save an otherwise ungrammatical sentence. I have claimed that en-deletion and V-deletion pattern like P deletion in that they must not be applied when the Stray Affix Constraint can be satisfied but they must be applied in a context where the Constraint cannot be satisfied.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (19)

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