겹주어 구문 연구사 - 2000년 이후 국내 학술지 논문을 중심으로 - (A Study on Research History of Multiple-Subject Construction - Focusing on Domestic Journal Papers Since 2000 -)

초록

This study critically examines research performances of multiple-subject construction, which is still the great crux of Korean language academic circles, focusing on domestic journal papers since 2000. It is anticipated that this study will help in clarifying the part to explain more for understanding the multiple-subject construction.
The study result showed that multiple-subject construction studies are mostly classified into studies, which define NP1 as a subject and others as predicate clause, complement (or object) and phrasal verb, and those that define NP2 as a subject and NP1 as an output of transformation or a topic (word). It was also revealed that quite a lot of studies think there is a secret of multiple-subject construction in the relation between NP1 and NP2, whatever NP1 or NP2 is a subject. All of devices for explaining the multiple-subject construction were found to have little theoretical weaknesses, whatever it is a predicate clause, phrasal verb or topic (word). ‘Cheolsuga nuni keuda’, ‘Oneuri nalssiga jota.’, ‘Sagwaga hongogi ppalgata.’ and ‘Cheolsuga gohyangi geuripda.’ have little different characteristics, but the description devices of studies only explained part of these. Therefore, some studies presented different explanations depending on individual factors, considering the multiple-subject construction as a complex phenomenon of language.

영어초록

This study critically examines research performances of multiple-subject construction, which is still the great crux of Korean language academic circles, focusing on domestic journal papers since 2000. It is anticipated that this study will help in clarifying the part to explain more for understanding the multiple-subject construction.
The study result showed that multiple-subject construction studies are mostly classified into studies, which define NP1 as a subject and others as predicate clause, complement (or object) and phrasal verb, and those that define NP2 as a subject and NP1 as an output of transformation or a topic (word). It was also revealed that quite a lot of studies think there is a secret of multiple-subject construction in the relation between NP1 and NP2, whatever NP1 or NP2 is a subject. All of devices for explaining the multiple-subject construction were found to have little theoretical weaknesses, whatever it is a predicate clause, phrasal verb or topic (word). ‘Cheolsuga nuni keuda’, ‘Oneuri nalssiga jota.’, ‘Sagwaga hongogi ppalgata.’ and ‘Cheolsuga gohyangi geuripda.’ have little different characteristics, but the description devices of studies only explained part of these. Therefore, some studies presented different explanations depending on individual factors, considering the multiple-subject construction as a complex phenomenon of language.

참고자료

· 없음