Ȩ : »çÀÌÆ®¸Ê : ¹®ÀǸÞÀÏ : ÀüÀÚÀú³Î
      ¿¬±¸À±¸®À§¿øȸ ±ÔÁ¤
      ÆíÁýÀ§¿øȸ ±ÔÁ¤
      ³í¹®Åõ°í¾È³»/±ÔÁ¤
      ³í¹®ÀÛ¼º¾ç½Ä
      ³í¹®Åõ°í½Åû
      ³í¹®ÀÚ·á½Ç
      ÇÐȸÁö°ü·Ã FAQ
 
 
 
Ȩ > ÇÐȸÁö > ³í¹®ÀÚ·á½Ç
 
Á¦¸ñ ÃÖ±Ù ÃÖ¼ÒÁÖÀÇ¿¡ ÀÔ°¢ÇÑ °í´ë¿µ¾î¿Í Çö´ë¿µ¾î ¾î¼ø Â÷ÀÌÀÇ ÅëÇÕÀû ¼³¸í
ÀúÀÚ ±è´ëÀÍ
±Ç / È£ 25±Ç / 3È£
Ãâó 113-132
³í¹®°ÔÀçÀÏ 2017. 9. 30.
ÃÊ·Ï Kim, Daeik. (2017). Toward a unified explanation of word order differences in Old English and Present-Day English in recent Minimalism. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 25(3), 113-132. The aim of this paper is to give an explanatory account of the differences in word order between Old English (OE) and Present-Day English (PE) in terms of the labeling algorithm advocated in Chomsky (2013, 2014). It has been argued in recent proposals that, with VO order in the main clause, OE exhibits OV or VO order in similar proportion in subordinate clauses where previous accounts considered only OV order to be a basic order. Given this revision, I propose that the differences in word order between OE and PE be attributed to the merge type in VP (VP-NP merge in OE vs. V-NP merge in PE), the difference in the number of the phases (monophase CP in OE vs. CP and vP phases in PE), and the status of feature inheritance (no feature inheritance in OE vs. feature inheritance in PE) when the label of the merge {X,Y} is determined in the labeling algorithm where sub-algorithms, such as minimal search and feature sharing, are activated.
÷ºÎ
  6.±è´ëÀÍ.pdf
  6.±è´ëÀÍ.hwp
 
 
 
 °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸º¸È£Á¤Ã¥ : À̸ÞÀϹ«´Ü¼öÁý°ÅºÎ : »çÀÌÆ®¸Ê : À̸ÞÀϹ®ÀÇÇϱâ