초록
영어
The ditransitive verb 'give' has three arguments Agent, Recipient, and Goal in terms of their semantic roles. Interestingly, these arguments have certain sequence types: Agent>Recipient>Goal and Agent>Goal>Recipient. From a syntactic perspective, these two sequences have different syntactic structures, though they have the same meaning. From a functional perspective, they can be described as a certain frame of the predicate (Dik 1989). According to the predicate frame, ‘give’ has two sequence patterns: Recipient+Goal and Goal+to+Recipient. Moreover, these sequence patterns can be explained via several theories from functional grammar. In this regard, the researcher would like to focus on three factors from the theories presented by Siewierska (1988): formal hierarchies, dominance hierarchies, and familiarity hierarchies. Additionally, two more theories are discussed: phonological and psychological factors (Bock 1982; Kreidler 2003). Even though these theory-based factors describe the linear order of the two sequence patterns, they are not empirically tested on the basis of corpus data. In other words, it is necessary to investigate how these two sequences are actually used in real utterances. For this, the study descriptively analyses corpus data focusing on frequency patterns for the two sequences (Recipient+Goal and Goal+to+Recipient). According to these results, the study finds that the two sequences based on certain theory-based factors are different from those of corpus data
목차
1. Introduction
2. Methods of corpus - based analysis
3. Predicate frame of ’give’
3.1. Formal hierarchy
3.2. Dominance hierarchy
3.3. Familiarity hierarchy
3.4. Phonological factors
3.5. Psychological factors
4. Conclusion
References
키워드
저자정보
참고문헌
- 1Allan, K. 1987. Hierarchies and the Choice of Left Conjuncts. Linguistics 23, 51-77.
- 2Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation.네이버 원문 이동
- 3Verb Disposition in Argument Structure Alternations: A Corpus Study of the Dative Alternation in Dutch네이버 원문 이동
- 4Dik, S. C. 1978. Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.
- 5Dik, S. C. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
- 6Givón, T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: Quantitative Cross-Language Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- 7On the linear order of ditransitive objects네이버 원문 이동
- 8Hoffmann, S., S. Evert, N. Smith, D. Lee, and Y. Berglund-Prytz. 2008. Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb - a Practical Guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
- 9Jackendoff, R. S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- 10Kreidler, C. W. 2003. The Pronunciation of English. Oxford: Blackwell.
- 11Levin, B. 2008. The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity. Linguistics 44, 129-167.
- 12O'Grady, W. and J. Archibald. 2000. Contemporary Linguistic Analysis (4th ed.). Toronto: Addison Wesley Longman.
- 13Oerhle, R. 1976. The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternative. Doctorial Dissertation. MIT.
- 14Siewierska, A. 1988. Word Order Rules. London: Croom Helm.