영어분열문의 본질

Abstract

이 논문은 분열문의 개념과 범위를 엄밀하게 정의하고 규정하여 분열문의 본질을 더욱 타당성있게 기술하는데 목적이 있다. 이 논문의 전반부는 분열문에 대한 Jespersen(1933,1909-1949,1937), Quirk et al.(1972,1985), Bolinger(1977), Givon(1979), EK & Robat(1980)와 같은 선행연구를 검토하는 부분으로, 후반부는 분열문의 본질에 대한 우리의 종합적인 주장을 전개하는 부분으로 이루어져 있다. 이 연구의 결과 드러난 우리의 주장은 다음과 같다.

1.분열문이란 be동사에 의해서 한문장이 강조부분과 전제부분의 두문장으로 나누어진 특수구문이다.

2.분열문은 크게 it-분열문과 WH-분열문으로 분류되며 it-분열문의 대표적 유형은 -that-분열문이고 WH-분열문의 대표적 유형은 what-분열문이다.

3.it-분열문의 it는 역행대용어이며 that은 관계대명사가 아니고 병렬문장의 연결사이다.

4.what-분열문의 what은 관계대명사이며 what-절은 종속절이다.

5.it-분열문과 what-분열문은 변형관계에 있는 것이 아니라 상보관계에 있다.

6.분열문의 화용론적 용법은 화자가 강조부분을 전경화하고 전제부분을 배경화하여 강조부분에 청자의 주의를 끌고자 하는 것이다.

7.분열문의 용인가능성은 궁극적으로 담화상의 개연성에 의해서 결정된다.

The paper aims to define and characterize the notion and the scope of the cleft sentence, and furthermore, to adequately describe the nature of the cleft sentence.

The first half of the paper examines the preceding studies such as Jespersen(1933,1909-1949,1937), Quirk et al.(1972,1985), Bolinger(1977), Givon(1979),and EK & Robat(1980). The second half of the paper presents our comprehensive arguments on the nature of the cleft sentence. Our arguments are as follows:

1.A cleft sentence is syntactically defined as a special construction where a single clause has been divided into two separate sections, a presupposed one and a focused one, each with its own verb.

2.A cleft sentence is cateporized into two kinds such as it-cleft and WH-cleft. The general type of the former is it-that-cleft and the general type of the latter what-cleft.

3.The identity of it in it-cleft is a cataphor, and that in it-cleft is not a relative pronoun but a connective for paratactic slauses.

4.The identity of what in what-cleft is a relative pronoun, and what-clause is a subclause.

5.The relation of it-cleft and what-cleft is not syntactically transformational but functionally complementary.

6.The pragmatics of the cleft sentence is that the speaker draws the hearer's attention on the focus, foregrounding the focus and backgrounding the presupposition.

7.The general acceptability of the cleft sentence depends on the contextual plausibility.

The paper aims to define and characterize the notion and the scope of the cleft sentence, and furthermore, to adequately describe the nature of the cleft sentence.

The first half of the paper examines the preceding studies such as Jespersen(1933,1909-1949,1937), Quirk et al.(1972,1985), Bolinger(1977), Givon(1979),and EK & Robat(1980). The second half of the paper presents our comprehensive arguments on the nature of the cleft sentence. Our arguments are as follows:

1.A cleft sentence is syntactically defined as a special construction where a single clause has been divided into two separate sections, a presupposed one and a focused one, each with its own verb.

2.A cleft sentence is cateporized into two kinds such as it-cleft and WH-cleft. The general type of the former is it-that-cleft and the general type of the latter what-cleft.

3.The identity of it in it-cleft is a cataphor, and that in it-cleft is not a relative pronoun but a connective for paratactic slauses.

4.The identity of what in what-cleft is a relative pronoun, and what-clause is a subclause.

5.The relation of it-cleft and what-cleft is not syntactically transformational but functionally complementary.

6.The pragmatics of the cleft sentence is that the speaker draws the hearer's attention on the focus, foregrounding the focus and backgrounding the presupposition.

7.The general acceptability of the cleft sentence depends on the contextual plausibility.