By Ki-dong Yi
Read or Download A Korean grammar on semantic-pragmatic principles PDF
Best grammar books
This extended 11th variation of the bestselling consultant to kind is predicated at the Economist's personal up-to-date condominium type guide, and is a useful better half for everybody who desires to converse with the readability, type and precision for which the Economist is popular. because the advent says, 'clarity of writing often follows readability of inspiration.
This quantity brings jointly fresh paintings at the formal and interpretational homes of determiners throughout various typologically and geographically unrelated languages. It seeks to respond to the center query of recent linguistic conception: Which homes of languages are common and that are variable?
Symmetries and asymmetries have consistently performed a tremendous function in linguistic theorizing. From the early works on possibly common homes of transformational techniques, adjustments among rightward and leftward flow methods have been famous and constituted a problem to theories of stipulations on variations.
- Easy Learning Irish Grammar (Collins Easy Learning Irish) (Irish and English Edition)
- Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure (Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture Series)
- Elements of structural syntax
- On the Grammar of Optative Constructions
Additional info for A Korean grammar on semantic-pragmatic principles
Whereas the basic meaning of the construction conveys the idea of a physical transfer, the examples in (9) express the relation between a cause and an effect. Causal relations are thus metaphorically understood as events of giving and receiving. A noise that causes a headache can be described as ‘giving me a headache’. A flood that causes the destruction of a bathroom could, under a rather optimistic outlook on life, be construed as ‘bringing an opportunity for remodelling’. The semantic spectrum of the Ditransitive construction further includes transfers that will only occur in the future, acts that facilitate reception of an object, and acts that block a potential transfer.
However, Goldberg (1995) argues that argument structure cannot be wholly explained in terms of lexical entries alone. An important piece of evidence in this regard is that speakers occasionally use verbs ‘creatively’, that is, with argument structures that are not conventionally associated with the respective verbs. The following examples illustrate that phenomenon. (3) John played the piano to pieces. He pulled himself free, one leg at a time. No matter how carefully you lick a spoon clean, some goo will cling to it.
Still, Chomsky would have a point if the quote were altered to ‘A single, isolated example never tells you what is impossible. ’ So, if that is the case, how can we determine what is possible and impossible? For a long time, linguists have approached the issue by constructing examples and judging the grammaticality of those examples, using their intuitions. Using intuitions as the only source of evidence is methodologically highly problematic (Schütze 1996), and for readers of this book who are non-native speakers of English it might not even be feasible.