• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.197-227
• /
• 2010

This study reviews (i) the (dis)advantages of two major semantic theories of focus, i.e., the Alternative Semantics (AS) and the Structured Meaning Theory (SM), and (ii) the hybrid analysis consisting of these two theories proposed by Krifka (2006). After pointing out a problem of this hibrid analysis, this study attempts to show the third alternative, i.e., the theory of identificational predication for focus can solve this problem.

• 한국영어학회지:영어학
• /
• 제4권2호
• /
• pp.195-227
• /
• 2004

This paper concerns the issue related to the focus phenomena with a particular reference to the two alternating orders (continuous vs. discontinuous orders) in particle constructions in English. To explain the alternation of word order in particle constructions, I will argue that the choice of word order is closely related to the focus property of the object DPs. Following Drubig (2003), I will assume that focus-feature is taken to be a syntactic feature assigned freely to a lexical head in the process of the mapping into Lexical Array (LA) from the lexicon (LEX). I argue that the focus-marked object DP cannot move out of its focus domain and thus the continuous order is derived. In the case of non-focus-marked object DP, however, the object DP moves out of VP in order to receive an appropriate interpretation. As a result, the discontinuous order is derived.

• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.137-179
• /
• 1997

This paper discusses several basic issues of the 'focus' phenomenon. One of them is the issue of the nature of focus, i.e., what constituent of the sentences gets focused. Another is the issue of to what aspect of meaning the focus contributes. The other is the issue of the functions of focus-sensitive operators. As for the first issue, it is observed that the basic function of focus is to mark all and only the new information of the sentence. But for the cases in which this principle is not observed, it is proposed that the focus in these cases in general plays a secondary function of triggering an additional emphatic scalar meaning. And yet, in these cases, the state of the matter is different between free focus and bound focus. It is also shown that contrary to the general belief that free focus contributes to the meaning semantically. Concerning focus-sensitive operators, we classify them into two groups, i.e., quantificational and scalar operators, and try to formalize their meaning in the framework of Pulman's(1997) 'higher order unification theory'.

• 대한음성학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한음성학회 2005년도 추계 학술대회 발표논문집
• /
• pp.179-184
• /
• 2005

The aim of this paper is to analyze the phonetic features of the lexical contrastive focus and the segmental contrastive focus. In this paper, I made two variables to study the realization of the contrastive focus. One is the three phonation types of the Korean plosive, a lenis, a fortis and an aspirate. The other is the positions of the segmental contrastive focus syllable in a word. I examined pitch, duration, intensity, VOT, formant, and so on. The realization of focus is different by the phonation types and the positions of the focused syllable.

• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.19-36
• /
• 2015

The aim of this paper is to investigate the usage of Korean markers -(n)un and -i/ka in editorial texts focusing on information structure. Noun phrases ending with the markers -(n)un and -i/ka were annotated semi-automatically using a corpus obtained from an online newspaper. Two important factors to determine the choice of markers were examined with the annotated data: referential givenness/newness and position in a sentence. Referential givenness and newness were adopted as indicators of information structure, topic and focus respectively. In addition to quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis was conducted on the selected data. The results suggest that both the marker -(n)un and -i/ka could carry a topic and a focus reading. Sentence position also played a crucial role in determining the marker, and the marker -i/ka was used more frequently in a later position of a sentence than the marker -(n)un.

• 한국융합학회논문지
• /
• 제11권12호
• /
• pp.261-274
• /
• 2020

트라우마 초점의 인터넷 기반 인지행동치료(internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy with a trauma focus: iCBT-T)의 개발 및 효과 검증 연구가 서구에서 활발하게 진행되고 있는 것에 비해, 한국 사회에서는 관련 연구가 최근에야 시작되었다. 본 연구의 목적은 iCBT-T 프로그램 개발과 운영의 고려사항을 제안하는 것이다. 먼저, iCBT-T와 관련된 선행 연구를 고찰한 후, iCBT-T 프로그램을 개발하기 위해 정신건강 지식과 ICT 기술을 융합하는 모형을 제시하였다. 그런 다음, iCBT-T의 초점과 표적 집단, 개입의 유형(오픈 액세스 vs. 안내형), 회기 수, 윤리적 이슈, 전문적 지원 및 이용자의 참여를 포함한 실질적 고려사항을 다루고, iCBT-T에서 인터넷 매체의 한계를 보완하기 위한 방법들을 제안하였다. 트라우마 초점의 인지행동치료와 ICT 기술의 융합 모델이 트라우마 사건을 경험한 많은 이용자들의 정신건강의 향상에 기여할 수 있는 프로그램 개발을 촉진하기를 기대한다.

• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.31-58
• /
• 2003

The main goal of this paper is to describe and analyse intensifiers, especially non-head-bound-intensifiers (NHBIs), which can be included in the discussion and analysis of these elements as focus particles. In doing so, NHBIs such as Korean susulo, casin/cache, English x-self and German selbst are dealt with in a rather cross-linguistical perspective. The pure and strict comparison between Korean, English and German is not intended. This paper is mainly concerned with the semantic domain where the respective contributions of the expressions in question overlap, which offers the common base for the discussion regarding Korean, one of the non-European languages and English and German, two European languages. They share the semantic domain ‘intensification’ regarding relevant subject-NP. They introduce an ordering distinguishing center and periphery. In contrast to head-bound-intensifiers (HBIs), however, NHBIs add self-involvement (directness of involvement) of subject-NP to the meaning of the relevant sentence. I adopt the proposals of Konig (1991), Primus (1992) and Siemund (2000) in the treatment of intensifiers as focus particles. However, I reject Konig (1991) that just NHBIs talre scope over a whole clause, Primus (1992) that NHBIs focus VPs, not NPs, and Siemund (2000) that NHBIs can be further devided into two groups, viz. NHBIs with exclusive readings and NHBIs with inclusive readings. Evidence for my position is presented mainly in the course of describing and analysing some syntactic properties and the meaning and use of NHBIs. I come to the conclusion that both the common meaning of intensifiers as focus particles and the common meaning of NHBIs of three languages can be represented by a simple logical formalism.

• 한국운동역학회지
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.327-333
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of different types of attentional focus(internal focus vs. external focus) on the dart throwing mechanics. Seven expert dart throwing athletes were assigned to an internal focus group and other seven athletes were assigned to an external focus group. Each group was asked to throw dart either under verbal instruction or without instruction. During dart throwing, accuracy(radial error), consistency(bivariate variable error), dart velocity, acceleration, elbow joint ROM, elbow joint angular velocity, EMD(electromechanical delay), iEMG of biceps brachii and triceps brachii, and CI(coactivation index) were collected and analyzed. Nither instruction type nor instruction itself affected in accuracy and consistency. However, in dart velocity and acceleration, there was an interaction between instruction and attentional focus types. Velocity and acceleration increased in the internal condition, where as they decreased in the external condition. The ROM of elbow joint did not affected by instruction and attention type. However, similar to dart velocity and acceleration, angular velocity increased in internal focus group, while it decreased in external focus group. EMG showed no difference with any condition. In conclusion, internal focus is better than external focus for dart throwing.

• Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.75-91
• /
• 1997

Laser cutting tests were conducted to investigate the laser cutting characteristics of solid woods such as 25mm-thick white oak(Quercus acutissima) and maple(Acer mono), and wood-based panels such as 15mm-thick medium density fiberboard and particleboard. Test variables were laser power, cutting speed, grain direction, and moisture content. Cutting depths, kerf widths and the maximum cutting speed were measured. Cutting depths were increased as focus of laser beam was moving from above the workpiece to on the surface of workpiece, and also to below the workpiece. Kerf widths were decreased as focus of laser beam was moving from above the workpiece to on the surface of workpiece, but were increased as focus of laser beam was moving from on the surface of workpiece to below the workpiece. Minimum kerf widths were obtained when focus of laser beam was positioned on the surface of workpiece. Cutting depths and kerf widths were decreased with increase in moisture content, and cutting depths and kerf widths of more dense white oak were smaller than those of maple. And also cutting depths and kerf widths of particleboard were smaller than those of medium density fiberboard.

• 영어어문교육
• /
• 제6호
• /
• pp.143-157
• /
• 2000

It has been one of the puzzles in the English syntax that so called the rule of subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI) is not allowed in subject wh-movement while it is not obligatory in non-subject wh-movement in a root sentence. This asymmetry has been a puzzle since SAI itself was thought to be a part of question construction as we can observe from yes/no questions. The asymmetry gets more complicated in terms of sentence embedding, i.e no SAI is permitted in the embedded context in question. The goal of this paper is to suggest an unified analysis for this unsolved grammatical phenomena on the basis of Rizzi (1997)'s recent work. The main idea is that SAI is not a I-to-C movement but one of I-to-Focus where Focus is a functional category and its phrase is located between CP and IP. The other proposal is that Wh-movement is no more homogeneous in terms of landing site between a root and an embedded sentence: the target for a wh-phrase in the former is the Spec of FocP (Focus Phrase) but the one in the latter is the Spec of CP as the standard theory assumes. Pesetsky (l999)'s analysis is discussed and its theoretical and empirical shortages are pointed out. Its rather radical proposals such as the one that the nominative case is just an uninterpretable tense feature of DP and the other that 'that' is no longer a complementizer but an element of I(nflection) make it less acceptable in spite of the possibility that it can get rid of Case theory entirely, which would be ideal in the spirit of minimalism.