Earticle

In this paper, 1 suggested the new procedure of sentence generation. The examination about the human language process is very difficult because it operate unconsciously and very momentary processing. But we think about that the process is not single line operating nor one way. It is a parallel and circulation. Accordingly, it is not output from any one seed of sentence as Deep Structure. And the core of grammatical relation is not the system of command from 'head'. It is relational and variables of grammatical unit.

Generally, generative grammar assumes that syntactic objects that merge are words or, more recently, inscriptions(e.g., Chomsky et al., 2023). However, certain phenomena seem difficult to explain within a system describing them as syntactic objects. This article introduces a new kind of syntactic object: the pointer. By using pointers, the structural burden of I-language is dramatically reduced as pointers only consist of an identifier and a lexical address. Because pointers target the underlying concepts of an entry, the inaccessibility of specific formal features dose not preclude Merge. This mecahnism explains how the system can merge entries even when their phonological or formal forms are “forgotten.” This article also argues for the existence of pre-linguistic ‘proto-thought’, which predates the evolution of I-language. This proto-thought provides the conceptual scaffolding necessary for further operations involving lexical selection and pointer-based operations.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the development of Generative Grammar and understand the Minimalist Program advanced by Chomsky(1995), with specific focus on the concept of minimization. In particular, this paper introduces the philosophical and theoretical background of Generative Grammar and presents the core concepts of syntactic theories existing under the Generative Grammar framework. It also discusses which aspects of each theory have been changed to achieve minimality. Since minimization revisions had already been made to the Standard Theory, the Extended Standard Theory, and the Government and Binding Theory, this paper concludes that the Minimalist Program is not completely different from other theories but rather an extension of them, which particularly emphasizes the economics and minimality of theory.

The purpose of this paper is to explore a possibility of applying Generative Grammar to learning of the second foreign languages by focusing on Spanish. Firstly, we deal with the reduced relative constructions. The Issue is how to account for the mechanism of making these constructions. Our proposal is that if the learners can understand the distinction between the base structure and the derived structure on the one hand, and the one between the so called unaccusative verbs and the "Pure" intransitive verbs on the other hand, they can predict correctly whether the reduction is possible or not. Secondly, we argue that if the learners make use of the notion of the argument, they can decide easily how to translate "??tt?? ke". Finally, we deal with the issue of translating the so called complex wh-questions. We propose that if the learners can understand the parametric differences between Korean and Spanish with respect to wh-fronting, they can decide easily where to place wh-phrase.

This paper aims to account for the distribution of the null complementizer(null C) in Spanish. Although the presence of the complementizer que is basically obligatory in this language, certain classes of verbs may allow the omission of que in complement position. However, this is not always the case when an overt lexical element appears preverbally. In addition, when complement clauses appear in non-canonical positions like topicalized position, the omission of que is also disallowed. Thus, in this paper I try to provide an account of why que can be omitted in some environments and cannot in other environments. For this, I critically review Brovetto’s(2002) analysis of the null C in Spanish. I further discuss whether some analyses of the English null C can be extended to Spanish. I argue that these analyses are not satisfactory enough to deal with Spanish data. By modifying Bošković & Lasnik’s(2003) PF-Merger analysis, I propose that the Spanish null C is a PF-prefix: it must attach to a verb on its right under adjacency. I show that many examples can be accommodated by this proposal. I further show that the obligatory subject-verb inversion in Spanish wh-questions receives a new account under my proposal.

This study will show how the theoretical development of generative grammar can be incorporated into the Korean education system. Since Chomsky (1965), the generative grammar, which has steadily developed, has resulted in the creation of various models of sentence analysis. However, the radical progress and changes of generative grammar have not been actively reflected in the teaching methods used in the instruction of second language(L2). Thus, we will offer an alternative model for the instruction of L2 Korean grammar in Korean schools. Empirical evidence based on the survey will show that this new model, which reflects trends of generative grammar, may provide more effective and precise methods for teaching L2 Korean grammar.

?? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??????. ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????????? ????????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ????????. ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ≫ 71 ) ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ? (????: ????????? 1989 ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?????. ?? ?? ???. ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???. ???? ? ????? 1985 ) ≪ ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????? 62 ) ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? - 61 ? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????:" ? ≫ . ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ? ????? 1978 ) ≪" ???? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? 72 ). ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ????? ?????? ? 300 ? ?????????? 1989 ????? ??????? ) Aspects of The Theory of Syntax ????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???????) ??? 1965 ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? (???????) ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ????????? ? ??? ????? 1985 ) ≪ ??????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??????

In his tragedies Shakespeare portrays the fall of good men into evil as a result of human corruption, leading to crimes and human misery. This paper examines the evolution and actions of Shakespearean villains, illustrating the consequences of evil through the characters of Iago in Othello, Richard in Richard III, and Macbeth in Macbeth. Through an in-depth analysis of these plays, the paper sheds light on the different manifestations of evil and their implications for human nature and society. Shakespear’s evils often exist outside the individual, such as societal injustice, oppression, or harmful systems and institutions. However, something imposed on individuals by external forces soon turns into the evil that comes from within an individual, such as deceit, cruelty, ambition. These internal evil often associated with personal choices and moral failings. As a necessary counterpart to good, the manifestation of evil is what allows us to recognize and appreciate goodness. This duality of Shakespeare’ tragedies is often explored in the context of moral dilemmas and the balance between opposing forces in the universe.

The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 12(3), 207-224. This paper deals with the status and role of expletive there in Generative Grammar. In particular, the main concern of this paper has to do with a historical survey of the models of Generative Grammar and its effects in the mechanism of introducing expletive there. In doing so, we will see how different models of Grammar affect a particular element, and why constructions containing expletive there invoke such vivid discussions in the minimalist program. We can see from this historical survey that the nature of expletive there is revealed by many theoretical devices.

This paper presents some fundamental properties of scrambling in Korean by identifying the properties that make scrambling distinct from topicalization and by reviewing why scrambling is given a movement analysis within a generative grammar rather than a base-generation analysis. Empirical evidence in Korean scrambling of non-arguments such as adverbs is considered to argue that scrambling in Korean involves a movement operation. The paper presents the motivation for the distinction between two types of scrambling (A-scrambling and A-bar scrambling) and also argues that Korean scrambling shows properties associated with these two types of scrambling.

This paper claims that given the exhaustive list of interpretive effects of Merge, as argued in this paper, the formal operation of Merge may be null hypothesis, which leads to new linguistic explanations, crucially supporting non-determinism (Yang 2013, 2014). Chomsky (2008) states: “Merge can apply freely, yielding expressions interpreted at the interface in many different kinds of ways.” The free Merge theory as claimed by Chomsky (2008) above implies that the Merge operation is free and optional unless the derivation comes to be constrained by some condition like the [+marked] feature, as discussed with respect to non-determinism (Yang 2013, 2014). The free and optional Merge is “unmarked” unless it is “marked” by being obligatory due to the [+marked] feature as mentioned above. Chomsky (2008) claims that every Merge, especially the unmarked Merge, always induces an interpretive effect. In fact, we may assume that even the marked Merge, which has been often exceptionally claimed to induce no interpretive effect, can be assumed to induce an interpretive effect called the “null interpretive effect,” or simply “null effect.” Hence, we accept Chomsky’s claim literally that every Merge induces an interpretive effect, and develop the theory of grammar crucially based on the general notion of interpretive effect of Merge. The overt exact operation of Merge for each interpretive effect is rarely distinctively defined in contrast to the general (semantic and/or functional) notion of interpretive effects like topic, focus, etc., so that the overt operation of Merge itself can be assumed to be null hypothesis, obviously even without involving the edge feature effects (Chomsky 2008), while the essential distinctive effects of Merge should be the semantic or functional interpretive effect itself (Yang 2014). By way of motivating the null hypothesis theory for Merge as characterized above, I will discuss significant theoretical implications of the null hypothesis of Merge with respect to new linguistic explanations, speculating how far the null hypothesis theory is applicable in our grammar.