A Corpus-based Pragmatic Study of Anaphoric Pronouns in English and Korean
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper verifies different referential properties of the corresponding anaphoric pronouns in both English and Korean by comparatively analyzing the samples of contemporary corpus data in a hypothetico-deductive way. It particularly zeros in on the deployment and selection of propositional anaphoric pronoun that and it in English and the corresponding pronoun ku-ke(s/n)) and ku-len(-ke(s/n)) in Korean discourse, based on comparative and comprehensive pragmatic properties: focus, prior knowledge, wide reference, and cognitive status. The sampling words of English and Korean corpus are quantitatively investigated and verified in terms of how propositional anaphoric pronouns in both languages are deployed and selected via different referential properties, rather than one-to-one correspondence between linguistic items. It is confirmed that propositional anaphoric pronouns in both languages share the same pragmatic and referential properties when they are referred to for speaker’s prior knowledge and a wide referent, but only ku ‘it’ in Korean, a relatively more anaphoric (i.e., less deictic) expression, has two variants: ku-ke(s/n)) ‘that’ and ku-len(-ke(s/n)) ‘it’.
Abstract
This paper verifies different referential properties of the corresponding anaphoric pronouns in both English and Korean by comparatively analyzing the samples of contemporary corpus data in a hypothetico-deductive way. It particularly zeros in on the deployment and selection of propositional anaphoric pronoun that and it in English and the corresponding pronoun ku-ke(s/n)) and ku-len(-ke(s/n)) in Korean discourse, based on comparative and comprehensive pragmatic properties: focus, prior knowledge, wide reference, and cognitive status. The sampling words of English and Korean corpus are quantitatively investigated and verified in terms of how propositional anaphoric pronouns in both languages are deployed and selected via different referential properties, rather than one-to-one correspondence between linguistic items. It is confirmed that propositional anaphoric pronouns in both languages share the same pragmatic and referential properties when they are referred to for speaker’s prior knowledge and a wide referent, but only ku ‘it’ in Korean, a relatively more anaphoric (i.e., less deictic) expression, has two variants: ku-ke(s/n)) ‘that’ and ku-len(-ke(s/n)) ‘it’.
참고문헌 (19)
- Ariel, M, "Interpreting Anaphoric Expressions: A Cognitive Approach versus a Pragmatic Approach", Journal of Linguistics, 30, pp.3~42 (1994)
- Ariel, M., "Defining Pragmatics" (2010), Cambridge University Press
- Fox, Barbara A., "Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English" (1987), Cambridge University Press
- Givón, T., "Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study", pp.1~42 (1983), John Benjamins
- Gundel, J. K., "Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse", Language, 69(2), pp.274~307 (1993)
- Halliday, M. A. K., "Cohesion in English" (1976), Longman
- Horn, L. R., "A Natural History of Negation" (1989), University of Chicago Press
- Huang, Y, "Discourse Anaphora : Four Theoretical Models", Journal of Pragmatics, 32, pp.151~176 (2000)
- Huang, Y., "Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Study" (2000), Oxford University Press
- Huang, Y., "Pragmatics" (2007), Oxford University Press
- Huang, Y., "Pragmatics" (2014), Oxford University Press
- Kamio, A., "Function and Structure: In Honor of Susumu Kuno", pp.289~315 (1999), John Benjamins
- 김석훈, "의미", 화용적 해석에 따른 문장 조응사의 영한번역, 2015, pp.57(3), 189~209[DOI]
- Lee, S., "Understanding English Referring Expressions: Cognitive and Pragmatic Approach" (2005), BooBooks
- Levinson, S. C., "Pragmatics" (1983), Cambridge University Press
- Levinson, S. C, "Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora: A Partial Pragmatic Reduction of Binding and Control Phenomena", Journal of Linguistics, 23, pp.379~434 (1987)
- Levinson, S. C., "Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature" (2000), MIT Press
- Prince, E. F., "Radical Pragmatics", pp.223~255 (1981), Academic Press
- Strauss, S. G., "Why ‘This’ and ‘That’ are not Complete without ‘It’", Chicago Linguistic Society, 29, pp.403~417 (1993)