영어 담화표지 but에 대한 절차적 대조 분석
A Study on the Procedural Contrastive Analysis of Discourse Marker but in English.
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Discourse markers, while obviously meaningful, don’t affect the truth conditions of the utterances they occur in. Because of their characteristic like this, they have attracted the interest of many researchers and have been studied from various points of views. So now there is no agreement on how they are to be defined or how they function. The purpose of this study is to analyse English discourse marker but as encoding procedural meaning, whose function is to guide pragmatic inference rather than to form part of the truth-conditional content. Following Fraser(2006), this study suggests that the core meaning of but, which is procedural, is to signal simple contrast of general nature. As an attempt to prove it, this study shows that the S1 message, the target, with which the direct S2 message is contrasted may be direct, implied, presupposed, or entailed message of S1. Particularly, this study suggests that the more specific interpretations of discourse marker but in utterances are triggered by a function of the interpretations of S1 and S2 and linguistic and nonlinguistic context as well as the core meaning of but. In conclusion, this study shows that Fraser(2006)’s procedural contrastive analysis can be an alternative to offer a better explanation of the meaning and interpretation of discourse marker but when S1, S2 in Fraser(2006) are replaced by C1, C2. in the analysis suggested by this study.
Abstract
Discourse markers, while obviously meaningful, don’t affect the truth conditions of the utterances they occur in. Because of their characteristic like this, they have attracted the interest of many researchers and have been studied from various points of views. So now there is no agreement on how they are to be defined or how they function. The purpose of this study is to analyse English discourse marker but as encoding procedural meaning, whose function is to guide pragmatic inference rather than to form part of the truth-conditional content. Following Fraser(2006), this study suggests that the core meaning of but, which is procedural, is to signal simple contrast of general nature. As an attempt to prove it, this study shows that the S1 message, the target, with which the direct S2 message is contrasted may be direct, implied, presupposed, or entailed message of S1. Particularly, this study suggests that the more specific interpretations of discourse marker but in utterances are triggered by a function of the interpretations of S1 and S2 and linguistic and nonlinguistic context as well as the core meaning of but. In conclusion, this study shows that Fraser(2006)’s procedural contrastive analysis can be an alternative to offer a better explanation of the meaning and interpretation of discourse marker but when S1, S2 in Fraser(2006) are replaced by C1, C2. in the analysis suggested by this study.
참고문헌 (24)
- Blakemore, D., "Semantic Constraints on Relevance" (1987), Blackwell
- Blakemore, D., "Understanding Utterance" (1992), Blackwell
- Blakemore, D., "Indicators and Procedures: Nevertheless and But", Journal of Linguistics, 36, pp.463~486 (2000)
- Blakemore, D., "Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers" (2002), Cambridge University Press
- Cummings, L., "The Pragmatics Encyclopedia" (2010), Roultedge
- Fraser, B., "An Approach to Discourse Markers", Journal of Pragmatics, 14, pp.383~395 (1990)
- Fraser, B., "Pragmatic Markers", Pragmatics, 6(2), pp.167~190 (1996)
- Fraser, B., "Contrastive Discourse Markers in English, in Discourse Markers: Description and Theory", pp.301~326 (1998), John Benjamins
- Fraser, B., "What are Discourse Markers", Journal of Pragmatics, 31, pp.931~952 (1999)
- Fraser, B., "Towards a theory of discourse markers, in Approaches to Discourse Particles", pp.189~204 (2006), Elsevier Ltd
- Grice, P., "Studies in the Way of Words" (1989), Harvard University Press
- Halliday, M., "Cohesion in English" (1976), Longman
- Hall, A., "Do Discourse Connectives Encode Concepts or Procedures", Lingua, 117, pp.149~174 (2007)
- Kitis, E., "Connectives and Frame Theory: The Case of Hypotextual antinominal ‘and’", Pragmatics & Cognition, 8(2), pp.357~409 (2000)
- Knott, A., "An Algorithmic Framework for Specifying the Semantics of Discourse Relations", Computational Intelligence, 16, pp.1~10 (2000)
- Knott, A., "The Classification of Coherence Relations and their Linguistic Markers: An Exploration of Two Languages", Journal of Pragmatics, 30, pp.135~175 (1998)
- Polanyi, L., "The Syntax of Text and Discourse", Text, 3, pp.261~270 (1983)
- Redeker, G., "Linguistic Markers of Discourse Structure", Linguistics, 29, pp.1139~1172 (1991)
- Rieber, S., "Conventional Implicatures as Higher Performatives", Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, pp.51~72 (1997)
- Sanders, T., "The Role of Coherence Relations and their Linguistic Markers in Text Processing", Discourse Processes, 29, pp.37~60 (2000)
- Schiffrin, D., "Discourse Markers" (1987), Cambridge University Press
- Schourup, L., "Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation: like, well, y’know" (1985), Garland
- Stubbs, M., "Discourse Analysis" (1983), Blackwell
- Van Dijk, T., "Pragmatic Connectives", Journal of Pragmatics, 3, pp.447~456 (1979)