• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Language and Information Conference
• /
• 1996.02a
• /
• pp.403-414
• /
• 1996

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Language and Information Conference
• /
• 1985.02a
• /
• pp.9-21
• /
• 1985

• Koreanishche Zeitschrift fur Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft
• /
• v.9
• /
• pp.169-193
• /
• 2004

In simultaneous interpreting, if the syntactic structure of the source language and the target language are very different, interpreters have to wait before being able to reformulate the source text segments into a meaningful utterance in target language. It is inevitable to adapt the target language structure to that of the source language so as not to unduly increase the memory load and to minimize the pause. While such adaptation enables simultaneous interpretating, it results in damaging the perspective coherence of the text. Discovering when such perspective coherence is impaired, and how the problem can be relieved, will enable interpreters to enhance their performance. This paper analyses the reasons for perspective coherence damage by looking at some examples of German-Korean simultaneous interpreting.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.3 no.2
• /
• pp.13-30
• /
• 1999

There have been two opposing views on the structure of the so-called head internal relative construction(HIRC) in Korean/Japanese, i.e., a view that analyzes the HIRC categorially as a nominal projection and functionally as an argument(Kuroda 1992, Watanabe 1992, Hoshi 1996, Jhang 1991/1994, among others) vs. a view that analyzes the HIRC categorially as an adjunct clause and functionally as a non-argument(Murasugi 1994). This paper on the one hand points out several phenomena indicating that Murasugi's analysis is more viable, while on the other hand proposing a more complex structure than Murasugi's to account for other facts as well. The no/kes clause in the HIRC will be analyzed as the complement of a null perception verb whose projection constitutes part of an adjunct clause.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Language and Information Conference
• /
• 1996.02a
• /
• pp.31-42
• /
• 1996

• Language and Information
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2014

Relativization is one of the common syntactic operations to merge two different clauses into a single information unit. This operation plays a pivotal role to structuralize multiple clauses cohesively as well as serves to specify the property an individual has within the context. That implies that relativization contributes to information structure of multiclausal sentences. In this context, this paper delves into information structure of relative clauses in English with an eye toward creation of a computational model from a standpoint of machine translation. The current work employs Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG, Pollard and Sag (1994)) as a theory of grammar and Minimal Recursion Semantics (MRS, Copestake et al. (2005) as a meaning representation system. Building upon these formalisms, this paper addresses how information structure of relative clauses can be represented and constrained. The current work makes use of Individual CONStraints (ICONS) for modeling relative clauses with respect to information structure. The current work also investigates which relative clause involves which information structure constraint. The present study argues that non-restrictive relative clauses impose a more specific constraint on information structure than restrictive relative clauses.

• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.353-358
• /
• 2021

This study provides the syntactic analysis for the agreement attraction by proposing three types of syntactic subject-verb agreement. Because subject-verb number agreement codifies the link between a predicate and its subject, it must be the purely syntactic processes of the head-to-head agreement or the feature percolation, where relevant agreement features percolate upward or downward through the hierarchical syntactic structure. The agreement errors are not affected by linear proximity or minimal interference, but instead are affected by the hierarchical relationship between an agreement target and a local attractor. The data in this paper includes the complex noun phrases with a modifier PP or a relative clause CP. Here, the [+PL] feature is suggested to be a local attractor for subject-verb agreement errors as a strong feature. Therefore, speakers tend to erroneously produce plural agreement for a singular subject in a main clause due to a plural NP in a modifier PP or plural agreement for a singular subject in a relative clause due to plural main subject.

• Korean Journal of Cognitive Science
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.49-56
• /
• 2003

In this article, we investigate some structural properties of head-internal relative clauses in Korean and their development in Korean-speaking children. In this study, we found head-internal relative clauses in Korean has a more limited domain than head-external relative clauses with respect to positions that can be relativized and clause boundaries that the head can move across: in head-internal relative clauses, only a subject or an object can be relativized and doubly embedded clause constitutes a barrier to the movement of the head. We also found that head-internal relative clauses are easier to understand and produce than head-external relative clauses. In addition, we found that head-internal relative clauses emerge earlier than head-external relative clauses in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean. The preference of young children (aged 4 and 5) for head-internal relative clauses over head-external relative clauses suggests that children like to use head-internal relative clauses at an early developmental stage when they have difficulty in using head-external relative clauses.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.85-103
• /
• 2008

Like English, Korean employs several complicated types of cleft constructions. This paper deals with two main types of Korean cleft constructions: predicational and identificational. It first reviews the formal properties of these two types and then provides a constraint-based analysis that can be computationally implemented. In particular, the paper assumes two types of noun KES (one as a common noun and the other as a bound noun) and treats the argument-gapped cleft clause similar to relative clauses while treating the adjunct-gapped cleft clause as a noun-complement construction. The paper further shows that the cleft constructions are closely linked to the copula constructions, sharing many common properties while having their own constructional constraints.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.28
• /
• pp.91-117
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to examine practical and legal considerations in the choice of the "Seat of Arbitration". As the selection of the "Seat of Arbitration" in an international commercial contract is vital both judicially and practically, so to speak, in terms of enforceability of award, judical interference in arbitration proceedings, relative convenience and expense, and the selection of arbitrators, the selection should be carefully considered and examined. In case of institutional arbitration, when the arbitration clause does not nominate the seat, the administrator or the secretariat of the institution or the arbitrator tribunal would usually determine the seat. On the contrary in case of ad hoc arbitration, Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the "Seat of Arbitration" would be determined according to the rules which are selected by parties or their arbitrators. To avoid confusing situation about the selection of the seat, this writer would like to recommend ICC or LCIA with each Standard Arbitration Clause. If the parties want any national arbitration institution because of the expenses incurred in international institution, AAA or CEPANI is recommendable in terms of the reputation, operating system and recognized performance. Specially ICC Court of Arbitration usually examines the award before it is issued, so the enforceablity would go up. Thus when the parties lay down the arbitration clause in their contract they should confirm whether the "Seat of Arbitration" is fixed or not. If not, at least they should examine the arbitration rules which would be applied, and know in advance how the seat be determined.