담화표지 ‘그러니까’의 사용에 내재한 화자의 담화전략 연구
The functions of kulehanikka and discourse strategy
0
조회
0
다운로드
21
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper, paying attention to another function of the conjunctive adverb kulenikka ‘thus,’ i.e. its function as a discourse marker, has worked out it in the view of the discourse strategies within the discussive discourse. It has been a long tradition in the history of linguistic research to define as grammaticalization an element’s transition from its original syntactic properties to a new category, and pay attention to its semantic functions. However, work on kulenikka remains at best to identify synchronically and diachronically what is the reason for the change from ‘kulehanikka’ to ‘kulenikka.’ Reflectively examining such results from the previous work, this paper emphasizes the usage of kulenikka as a discourse marker, and the aspects of its strategic use. The results of the transcriptional data from spoken discourse shows that kulenikka is used more frequently as a discourse marker, maintains such morphological rigidity that it is impossible for it to be replaced by ilenikka ‘for this reason’ or celenikka ‘for that reason,’ and has such a property of being independent of other constituents that it is alright to delete it. As these are consistent with the typical properties of discourse markers, this paper, following such results, regards kulenikka as a discourse marker. One should pursue the meanings of kulunikka in its environments of use including (1) adjustment, (2) additional account, (3) asking back, (4) return to the topic, and (5) refutation. This paper tries to explain them in the view of the speaker’s discourse strategies leading a discussion as it connects them with the aspects of its use in the discussive discourse. As a result, kulenikka (1) is used as a means for the strategy to gain time for correcting misused words, (2) plays the function of identical indication in that the speaker uses it to express his/her favor with the other for attracting attention or returning to the previous topic, or (3) is used as a strategic means to take one’s turn of mentioning in a discussive discourse in which a number of participants present their own opinions. the data of discussive discourse, the participants cannot help being faced with each other since their will of governing the dialogue in order to achieve their respective goals. Thus, other discourse markers than kulenikka frequently occur to play the role of buffers between them. I believe that we can more elaborately describe the conversational structure of the discussive discourse if we are able to the meanings of more discourse markers in the view of the discourse strategies by focusing on the aspects of their use.
Abstract
This paper, paying attention to another function of the conjunctive adverb kulenikka ‘thus,’ i.e. its function as a discourse marker, has worked out it in the view of the discourse strategies within the discussive discourse. It has been a long tradition in the history of linguistic research to define as grammaticalization an element’s transition from its original syntactic properties to a new category, and pay attention to its semantic functions. However, work on kulenikka remains at best to identify synchronically and diachronically what is the reason for the change from ‘kulehanikka’ to ‘kulenikka.’ Reflectively examining such results from the previous work, this paper emphasizes the usage of kulenikka as a discourse marker, and the aspects of its strategic use. The results of the transcriptional data from spoken discourse shows that kulenikka is used more frequently as a discourse marker, maintains such morphological rigidity that it is impossible for it to be replaced by ilenikka ‘for this reason’ or celenikka ‘for that reason,’ and has such a property of being independent of other constituents that it is alright to delete it. As these are consistent with the typical properties of discourse markers, this paper, following such results, regards kulenikka as a discourse marker. One should pursue the meanings of kulunikka in its environments of use including (1) adjustment, (2) additional account, (3) asking back, (4) return to the topic, and (5) refutation. This paper tries to explain them in the view of the speaker’s discourse strategies leading a discussion as it connects them with the aspects of its use in the discussive discourse. As a result, kulenikka (1) is used as a means for the strategy to gain time for correcting misused words, (2) plays the function of identical indication in that the speaker uses it to express his/her favor with the other for attracting attention or returning to the previous topic, or (3) is used as a strategic means to take one’s turn of mentioning in a discussive discourse in which a number of participants present their own opinions. the data of discussive discourse, the participants cannot help being faced with each other since their will of governing the dialogue in order to achieve their respective goals. Thus, other discourse markers than kulenikka frequently occur to play the role of buffers between them. I believe that we can more elaborately describe the conversational structure of the discussive discourse if we are able to the meanings of more discourse markers in the view of the discourse strategies by focusing on the aspects of their use.
참고문헌 (51)
- 강소영, "구어 담화에서의 ‘그래 가지고’의 의미", 한국어 의미학, 16, pp.1~21 (2005), 한국어의미학회
- 강소영, "구어 담화에 나타난 수정 양상 연구: 수업내용을 화제로 한 대학 강사들의 대화 중심으로", 한국어학, 32, pp.1~30 (2006), 한국어학회
- 강소영, "우측 어순 변동 구문의 실현양상과 의미기능 연구", 한국어 의미학, 20, pp.281~303 (2006), 한국어의미학회
- 강소영, "어순도치구문의 담화 기능 분석", 한국어 의미학, 26, pp.1~20 (2008), 한국어의미학회
- 구현정, "조건 담화의 순서 교대 양상", 언어과학연구, 21, pp.1~24 (2002), 언어과학회
- 강지수, "구어체 담화와 문어체 담화의 문법 현상 비교", 어문연구, 7(47), pp.63~82 (2005), 어문연구학회
- 김미경, "한국어 대화체 구문의 정보구조", 담화와 인지, 8(1), pp.21~42 (2002)
- 김용석, "연결어미 ‘는데’에 대하여", 배달말, 6, pp.269~291 (1981)
- 김해연, "기능문법과 담화분석", 인문학연구, 26, pp.17~39 (1997)
- 김해연, "대화, 사회행위, 그리고 문법", 인문학연구, 33, pp.41~74 (2001)
- 박성현, "한국어 말차례 체계와 화제", 박사, pp.1996
- 서경희, "이게 바로 그거야:원근지시에서 태도지시로", 담화와 인지, 6(2), pp.1~22 (1999)
- 서정수, "접속어미 {ㄴ", 는데}에 관하여, 1973, pp.61, 96~98
- 신지연, "국어 지시 용언 연구" (1998), 태학사
- 신현숙, "담화 대용표지의 의미 연구", 국어학, 19, pp.427~451 (1989)
- 안주호, "‘그러-’계열 접속사의 형성과정과 문법화", 국어학, 35, pp.113~141 (2000)
- 이기갑, "‘그러하-’의 지시와 대용,그리고 그 역사", 언어, 19(2), pp.455~488 (1994)
- 이기갑, "한국어의 담화 표지 ‘이제’", 담화와 인지, 1, pp.261~287 (1995)
- 이기동, "The pragmatic function of the connective nuntey(in korean)", 인문과학, 41, pp.117~142 (1979)
- 이은경, "텔레비전 토크쇼 텍스트 연결어미 분석", 텍스트언어학, 5, pp.167~198 (1998)
- 이정애, "‘가지고’의 문법화 과정", 언어, 23(1), pp.87~110 (1998)
- 이한규, "한국어 담화 표지어 ‘그래’의 의미 연구", 담화와 인지, 3, pp.1~26 (1996)
- 이한규, "한국어 담화표지어 ‘뭐’의 의미", 담화와 인지, 6(1), pp.137~157 (1997)
- 이성하, "문법화의 이해" (1998), 한국문화사
- 이희자, "‘의사소통의 최소단위’로서의 ‘발화문’과 ‘문장’", 텍스트언어학, 13, pp.343~366 (2002), 한국텍스트언어학회
- 임규홍, "‘어 가지고’에 대하여", 배달말, 19, pp.49~80 (1994)
- 임규홍, "국어 담화 표지 ‘인자’에 대한 연구", 담화와 인지, 2, pp.1~20 (1996)
- 임규홍, "국어 생략현상에 대한 연구", 어문학, 57, pp.281~319 (1996)
- 임규홍, "국어 ‘말이야’의 의미와 담화적 기능", 담화와 인지, 5(2), pp.159~179 (1998)
- 임규홍, "국어 담화의 끼어들기 유형", 언어과학연구, 20, pp.321~351 (2001)
- 유구상, "국어의 도치에 대한 고찰", 한글, 155, pp.115~144 (1975)
- 유현경, "연결어미의 종결어미적 쓰임에 대하여", 한글, 261, pp.123~148 (2003), 한글학회
- 장경희, "지시어 ‘이,그,저’의 의미분석", 어학연구, 16(2), pp.167~184 (1980)
- 전영옥, "한국어 억양단위 연구 - 통사적 특징을 중심으로", 담화와 인지, 10(1), pp.241~265 (2003), 담화ㆍ인지언어학회
- 정희자, "주제의 담화기능에 대하여", pp.563~598 (1994), 언어학
- 정희자, "영어 담화에서 담화전략과 어순변화", 담화와인지, 2, pp.21~45 (1996)
- 홍사만, "국어 특수조사론" (1983), 학문사
- 채 완, "조사 ‘-는’의 의미", 국어학, 39, pp.93~113 (1976)
- Brown P., "Politeness" (1987), Cambridge Univ. Press
- Chafe,Wallace, "Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view, Subject and topic", pp.27~55 (1976), Academic Press
- Chafe,Wallace, "Discourse,Consciousness, and Time" (1994), The University of Chichago Press
- Du BOis, John, "Discourse Transcription Vol.4" (1992), Santa Barbara Paper in Linguistics
- Gundel, "Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse", language, 69, pp.274~307 (1993)
- Halliday, M. A. K., "Notes on transitivity and therme in English,Part 2", Journal of Linguistics, 3, pp.199~244 (1967)
- Kuno, Susume, "Functional sentence perspective", linguistic inquiry, 3, pp.269~320 (1972)
- Kuno, Susume, "generative discourse analysis in America in: Current trends in textlinguistics", pp.275~294 (1978), De Gruyter
- Lee, Hyo Sang, "Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal suffix in Korean from a typological perspective", ~ (1991)
- Prince, Ellen, "Toward a taxonomy of given-new information in: Radical Pragmatics", pp.223~254 (1981), Academic Press
- Sacks,H., "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of turn-taking for Conversation", Language, 50, pp.698~735 (1974)
- Schiffrin, Deborah, "Discourse Markers" (1987), Cambridge University Press
- Yong-Yae Park, "The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse", Journal of Pragmatics, 31 (1998), Elsevier Science B. V.