All Issue

2019 Vol.35, Issue 2 Preview Page
August 2019. pp. 185-197
In this paper, I accept the Reinhart and Reuland(1993), Reuland(2006)’s suggestion about the reflexive’s category and apply it to the Korean’s simple reflexives, complex reflexives in the Geldren’s reflexive structure. The Korean complex reflexive ‘jagi jasin’ is considered to be the unification of SE reflexive and SELF reflexive. Therefore, it is distinctively used as having the characteristic of two reflexives simultaneously. It appears as [NP jagi [N jasin]] that jagi is the D position of DP and jasin is the N position. In Jeonwitae(1996)’s pragmatic hierarchy, I suggest correcting his pragmatic hierarchy. Also, I suggest that jagi is not bound with the 1st pronoun antecedent, but bound with 2nd, 3rd pronoun antecedent contradictory to other professors’ suggestions. But even more, also, even if some sentences are the same structure, in case atomic verb has the specific lexical, semantic feature and is used by the specific mood, ‘jagi’ is coindexed with the 1st pronoun against some other professors’ suggestion. This means that the binding can happen by the pragmatic element: the mood, the point of view, or subjectivization.
  1. 김용석. 2000. 재귀사의 형태-통사론적 분석: 최소주의적 접근. 『현대문법』 19, 1-26.
  2. 박강희. 2009. 「제약기반의 직접논항 결속으로」. 『국제언어문학』 20, 55-74.
  3. 박의재. 1999. 『중세영어의 통사구조』. 문경출판사.
  4. 엄홍준. 2014. 한국어 재귀사 ‘자기’의 속성. 『언어』 39.4, 2014, 899-919.
  5. 이필환. 2006. 영어 재귀 대명사의 역사적 변화. 『영어학연구』 21, 43-72.
  6. 전위태. 1996. HPSG의 사격성 위계(Oblique Hierarchy)의 연구. 경희대 박사학위논문.
  7. 최기용. 2014. 피결속-변항 대명사로서의 ‘자기’. 『생성문법연구』 24, 325-364.
  8. 홍성심. 2015. 1-2인칭 재귀사와 3인칭 재귀사의 형태구조적 비대칭성: 문법화의 관점에서. 『언어연구』 31.1, 179-197.
  9. Chomsky, N. 1986a. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. Praeger, New York.
  10. Chomsky, N. 1991. Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation. Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. (ed.) Robert Friedin. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press.
  11. Chomsky, N. 1992. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. MIT Occational Papers in Linguistics, 1.
  12. Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik. 1991. Principles and Parameters Theory. Syntax: An international Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. .
  13. Geldren, E. van. A. 2010. History of English Reflexive Pronouns Person, SELF and Interpretability. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  14. Huang J. and J. Tang.1988. On the Local Nature of the Long-Distance Reflexive in Chinese. Paper presented at NELS 19 meeting.
  15. Iida, Masayo. 1989. HPSG Account of Japanese Zibun ms. Center for the study of Language and Information. Stanford University.
  16. Iida, Masayo. 1992. Context and Binding in Japanese. Ph.D Dissertation. Stanford University.
  17. Keenan, E. 2003. An Historical Explanation of Some Binding Theoretic Facts in English. Moore, J. and M Polinsky (eds.). The Nature of Explanation on Linguistic Theory, 152-89. Chcago: CSLI Publication.
  18. Manning, Christopher, Ivan A Sag. 1998b. Argument Structure, Valence, and Binding. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 21, 107-144. 10.1017/S0332586500004236
  19. Pollard, C. and I. A. Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and The Scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23.2, 261-303.
  20. Pollard, C. and I. A. Sag. 1993. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Volume 2. University of Chicago Press and CSLI Publications.
  • Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
  • Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
  • Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
  • Volume : 35
  • No :2
  • Pages :185-197