1 research outputs found
ν°ν€μ΄ κ²°κ³Ό ꡬ문μ ꡬ쑰
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ(μμ¬)--μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ :μΈλ¬Έλν μΈμ΄νκ³Ό,2019. 8. κ³ ν¬μ .λ³Έ μ°κ΅¬μμλ κ°λ³ μΈμ΄ λ³λ‘ μλΉν λ³μ΄μ±μ 보μ¬μ£Όλ κ²°κ³Ό ꡬ문μ(Eckardt, 2003; Legendre, 1997; Nakazawa, 2008; Napoli, 1992) μ¬λ¬ μΈμ΄μ νν λμ‘°λ₯Ό ν΅νμ¬ ν°ν€μ΄ κ²°κ³Ό ꡬ문μ ννλ₯Ό λ°νκ³ μ΄λ€μ ν΅μ¬μ νΉμ§λ€μ νμ
νλ € νμλ€. νΉν, μμ΄ κ²°κ³Ό ꡬ문μ λν μ°κ΅¬λ νλκ² μ΄λ£¨μ΄μ Έ μμ§λ§, ν°ν€μ΄μ κ²°κ³Ό ꡬ문μ μ΄μ μ λ μ°κ΅¬λ λ§€μ° λλ¬Όμλ€.
μ ν μ°κ΅¬ Turgay (2013)μ λ°νμΌλ‘ μ΄ λ
Όλ¬Έμ ν°ν€μ΄μ λμ¬-AsIyA νκ³Ό νμ©μ¬ (AP) ν, λ κ°μ§ ννμ κ²°κ³Ό κ΅¬λ¬Έμ΄ μ‘΄μ¬ν¨μ κ°μ‘°νλ€. κ·Έλ¬λ μ΄μ μ°κ΅¬μ λ¬λ¦¬ λ νν λͺ¨λκ° μμ ꡬ쑰λ₯Ό κ°λλ€λ ν΅ν©μ μΈ μ£Όμ₯μ νλ€. νμ§λ§ λ³Έ λ
Όλ¬Έμμλ λμ¬-AsIyA νμ λΆκ°μμ λ‘ λ³΄κ³ νμ©μ¬ (AP) νμ λ³΄μ΄ (complement)λ‘ λΆμνκ³ μ νλ€.
κ²°κ³Ό ꡬ문μ ν μ’
λ₯λ‘μ λμ¬ -AsIyA νμ ꡬ쑰λ νκ΅μ΄μ -κ² ν κ²°κ³Ό ꡬ문과 λΉμ·νκ² μ μ΄μ μ£Όμ΄κ° μ·¨ν 격μ λ°λΌ ν΅μ¬μ νΉμ±μ λνλΈλ€. μ΄μ λ°λΌ λ³Έ λ
Όλ¬Έμμλ Ko(2015)μ λΆκ° μμ λΆμμ ν°ν€μ΄μ κ²°κ³Ό ꡬ문μ ννμ μ μ©νμ¬ μ΄ μ νμ ν΅μ¬μ λμΆμ λν μλ‘μ΄ μ μμ νκ³ μ νλ€. μ΄μ κ΄λ ¨νμ¬ 3.1μ μμλ -AsIyA νμ ꡬ쑰μ μ±κ²©μ λΆμμ μ μνκ³ μλ€.
λν, ν°ν€μ΄λ Talmy(2000)μ μ΄νν μ ν μ΄λ‘ μμ μ μν λμ¬ν μΈμ΄μ μνμ§λ§, λ³Έ μ°κ΅¬μμλ ν°ν€μ΄μμ νμ©μ¬κ° κ²°κ³Ό μνλ₯Ό κ°λ¦¬ν€λ λ³΄μ΄ μ νμ΄ λ μ μλ€κ³ μ§μ νλ€. κ·Έλ¬λ, μ£Όλͺ©ν μ μ ν°ν€μ΄ νμ©μ¬ 결과ꡬ문μ λͺ©μ μ΄μ μν λ³νλ₯Ό ν¨μνλ λμ¬μ 보μ΄λ‘λ§ μ¬μ©λλ€λ κ²μ΄λ€ (Washio, 1997). μ΄ μ νμ λν νκ΅μ΄μ pound-ν -λ‘ κ²°κ³Ό ꡬ문과 κ°μ΄ μ μ΄ μ μΉ, μ°μΈ‘ μ μ, μ’μΈ‘ μ μ, μ μ΄ μλ΅ νμμ μμ΄μ μ μ¬ν νΉμ§μ 보μ¬μ€λ€. λ°λΌμ Ko (2015)μ λΆμμμμ²λΌ μ μ΄μ μ£Όμ΄λ μ£Όμ λμ¬μ λͺ©μ μ΄μ ν΄λΉνλ©° μ΄λ₯Ό ν΅μ νλ PRO μ νμ©μ¬κ° μμ μ μ΄λ£¬λ€. κ²°λ‘ μ μΌλ‘ λ³Έ μ°κ΅¬λ ν°ν€μ΄μ λ κ°μ§ μ νμ κ²°κ³Ό ꡬ문μ λν ν΅ν©μ μΈ λΆμμ μ 곡νλ€.Although resultative constructions have been widely studied cross-linguistically, especially in English grammar (Bowers, 1993; Carrier and Randall, 1992; Hoekstra, 1988; Radford, 2009; Rappaport Hovav & Levin, 2001; 1974; Simpson, 1983), research focusing on Turkish resultative constructions is very scarce. This study investigates the availability of the resultative constructions, especially adjectival ones, in Turkish and examines their syntactic natures. Turkish RCs are discussed, and their syntactic structures are analysed.
In the light of previous studies (Turgay,2013;Ko, 2015), the main argument is that Turkish has two types of resultatives; -AsIyA and AP type and considering the semantic relation between the DPs and result XP, both have small clause structures (Aarts, 1992; Hoekstra, 1988; Stowell, 1981, 1983). First, it was investigated if AP types RCs are available in Turkish. Although it is considered as v-framed language and does not allow DMCs, it was concluded that Turkish has AP type RCs but only the weak ones (Washio, 1997).
As for βAsIyA structures, it is shown that the subject of the result XP can be either accusative or nominative marked and that these two different marked constructions exhibit different structural features like Korean βkey resultatives. Thus, it is illustrated that adoption of Kos adjunct small clause analysis captures their properties well.
Considering the similarities between Korean pound-type βlo RCs and Turkish AP- type RCs such as predicate fronting, predicate right-dislocation and predicate omission, it is presented that Turkish AP type RCs pattern with Korean pound-type βlo RCs and adoption of complement small clause analysis including PRO, argued by Ko (2015), on this type works well.
In conclusion, small clause structures with different merge nodes; adjunct small clause and complement small clause, account for both types of Turkish RCs; -AsIyA and AP-type respectively. This analysis also captures the differences between the NOM and ACC cased βAsIyA constructions. Thus, the present study provides a unified analysis for both types of resultatives in Turkish.I. INTRODUCTION . 1
1.1 The Motivation and Purpose of the Study . 4
1.2 Organization of Thesis . 4
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5
2.1 Language Variation in RCs 5
2.1.1 English 5
2.1.2 German 17
2.1.3 Romance Languages . 20
2.1.4 Chinese 23
2.1.5 Japanese 25
2.1.6 Korean . 26
2.2 Summary and Conclusion 35
III. TURKISH RESULTATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS . 36
3.1 Previous Study on Turkish RCs. 36
3.2 The Proposal . . 49
3.3 Analysis 51
3.3.1 -AsIyA type . 51
3.3.2 AP type 61
3.4 Implications 71
IV. CONCLUSION 77
4.1 Summary 77
4.2 Limitations and Issues for further Research 80
References 83
Abstract (Korean) . 88Maste