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
한국중앙영어영문학회 영어영문학연구 영어영문학연구 제56권 제4호
발행연도
2014.1
수록면
391 - 417 (27page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Fragments in English are derived by focus fronting of the answer constituent to the left periphery of the clause followed by TP-ellipsis. Fragment answers should be in Spec-FP of the clause, which is what fragments in Korean show, except that not TP-ellipsis, but CP-ellipsis is followed. The fragment answer in the bi-clausal structure receives the same “move-and-delete” analysis as that in the simplex clause. To get a legitimate MFA, Bae & Park (2014) argue that the MFA should be derived from the same clause (i.e., the same matrix clause). In fact, however, an embedded subject disjointed with the matrix argument is a barrier only when one or more remnant(s) in the embedded clause and the other(s) in the matrix clause undergo movement to a matrix left peripheral position. Thoms (2014) argues that the second remnant cannot escape an ECM infinitive or finite clause. However, the two factors are extraneous. It has been shown that our proposal that the embedded remnant cannot escape the embedded subject disjointed with the matrix argument is more persuasive than Thoms’ (2014) one since only the embedded subject disjointed with the matrix subject is pivotal in preventing the second remnant from undergoing movement out of the embedded clause in English and Korean cross-linguistically.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (22)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0