Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T02:16:35.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical versus periphrastic causatives in Korean1, 2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Masayoshi shibatani
Masayoshi shibatani
Affiliation:
Linguistics Program, University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The paraphrase relation or the cognitive synonymy between sentences has played a key rôle in the development of the theory of transformational grammar. It was a remarkable feat of early transformational grammarians to discover that the cognitive synonymy as well as the similarity of certain selectional restrictions between pairs of active and passive sentences can be accounted for by positing single deep structures, and by relating the two types of surface sentences by transformations: I have in mind the restrictions which apply to sentences such as John frightens sincerity, Sincerity is frightened by John.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , September 1973 , pp. 281 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Fodor, J. A. (1970). Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. LIn 1. 429–438.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kim, S-D. (1971). Structure of Korean, the morpho-syntactic structures of Korean, passive causative transformation and co-occurrence. Seoul: Yonsei University Press. [In Korean].Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1965). On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Published as Irregularity in syntax (1970). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1968). Some verbs of change and causation. In Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Reports NSF-2O. Cambridge, Mass: The Computational Laboratory of Harvard University.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Ross, J. R. (1972). A note on anaphoric islands and causatives. LIn 3. 121–125.Google Scholar
Martin, S. E. et al. (1967). A Korean-English dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1967). Meaning and the description of languages. Kotoba no uchū 2. 10–18, 38–48, 51–57.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1968). Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. In Darden, et al. (eds.), Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1971). Prelexical syntax. In O'Brien, (ed.), Report of the 22nd annual Round Table meeting on linguistics and language studies. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1972). Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’ in Japanese. In Kimball, (ed.), Syntax and semantics, volume 1. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1973). Semantics of Japanese causativization. FL 9: 3.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (in prep.). Lexical versus periphrastic causatives: structures and theoretical implications.Google Scholar
Soga, M. (1970). Similarities between Japanese and English verb derivations. Lingua 25. 268–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1972). Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. Berkeley: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of California.Google Scholar
Yang, I-S. (1972). Korean syntax: case markers, delimiters, complementation and relativization. Seoul: Paek Hap Sa.Google Scholar