원어민 화자와 한국인 EFL 학습자의 영어 지시표현 사용에 관한 연구
A Study on the Use of English Referring Expressions By Native English Speakers and Korean EFL Learners
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this study is to explore the distribution and the selection of anaphora by analyzing a survey filled out by Korean EFL learners and Americans, and to identify the semantic functions of English referring expressions, and to compare the cognitive differences of Korean EFL learners and Americans. The findings can be summarized as follows: first, regardless of the type of a topic, Korean EFL learners and Americans have common patterns of referring expressions. Second, Korean EFL learners and Americans share similarities in the types of referring expressions and their meanings. Third, Korean EFL learners have more restrictive (in focus, activated) cognitive statuses than Americans with less restrictive (in focus, activated, uniquely identifiable) cognitive statuses. Thus, this paper argues that Korean EFL learners have a narrow range of referring expressions, while Americans possess a wide range of referring expressions. This study is meaningful in that the findings from the survey, in which parameters (distance between two anaphors, interfering referents) occur, can help Korean EFL learners to understand the use of other anaphoric forms, instead of overusing pronouns as a referring expression.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the distribution and the selection of anaphora by analyzing a survey filled out by Korean EFL learners and Americans, and to identify the semantic functions of English referring expressions, and to compare the cognitive differences of Korean EFL learners and Americans. The findings can be summarized as follows: first, regardless of the type of a topic, Korean EFL learners and Americans have common patterns of referring expressions. Second, Korean EFL learners and Americans share similarities in the types of referring expressions and their meanings. Third, Korean EFL learners have more restrictive (in focus, activated) cognitive statuses than Americans with less restrictive (in focus, activated, uniquely identifiable) cognitive statuses. Thus, this paper argues that Korean EFL learners have a narrow range of referring expressions, while Americans possess a wide range of referring expressions. This study is meaningful in that the findings from the survey, in which parameters (distance between two anaphors, interfering referents) occur, can help Korean EFL learners to understand the use of other anaphoric forms, instead of overusing pronouns as a referring expression.
참고문헌 (23)
- 곽태원, "영어 지시표현 사용에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2020
- Ariel, Mira, "Referring and accessibility", Journal of Linguistics, 24, pp.67~87 (1988)
- Ariel, Mira, "Accessing non-phrase antecedents" (1990), Routledge
- Ariel, Mira, "Interpreting anaphoric expressions: A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach", Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), pp.3~42 (1994)
- Ariel, Mira, "Pragmatics and grammar" (2008), Cambridge University Press
- Ariel, Mira, "Defining pragmatics" (2010), Cambridge University Press
- Brown, Cheryl, "Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study", pp.313~341 (1983), John Benjamins
- Fox, Barbara A, "Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English" (1987), Cambridge University Press
- Givón, Talmy, "Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study", pp.1~42 (1983), John Benjamins
- Gundel, Jeanette K, "‘Shared knowledge’ and topicality", Journal of Pragmatics, 9, pp.83~107 (1985)
- Gundel, Jeneatte K., "On the generation and interpretation of demonstrative expressions", Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 12, pp.216~221 (1988)
- Gundel, Jeneatte K., "Givenness, implicature and demonstrative expressions in English discourse", Papers from the 25th Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), pp.89~103 (1989)
- Gundel, Jeneatte K., "Givenness, implicature, and the form of referring expressions in discourse", Papers from the 16th Regional Meeting. Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS), pp.442~253 (1990)
- Gundel, Jeneatte K., "Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse", Language, 69(2), pp.274~307 (1993)
- Gundel, Jeneatte K., "Definite descriptions and cognitive status in English: why accommodation is unnecessary", Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 5(2), pp.273~295 (2001)
- Halliday, M. A. K., "Cohesion in Eng" (1976), Longman
- Hinds, John, "Anaphora in discourse" (1978), Linguistic Research Inc.
- Hinds, John, "Syntax and semantics 12", pp.135~157 (1979), Academic Press
- 이경화, "Modified Feature Specifications w.r.t. Anaphoric Dependency", 영어영문학연구, 57(4), pp.283~303 (2015), 한국중앙영어영문학회[DOI]
- 이경화, "Minimalist Approach to How to Encode Anaphoric Relations", 영어영문학연구, 58(2), pp.283~302 (2016), 한국중앙영어영문학회[DOI]
- Mann, William C., "Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization", Text, 8, pp.243~281 (1988)
- Prince, Ellen F, "Radical pragmatics", pp.223~255 (1981), Academic Press
- Quirk, Randolph, "A comprehensive grammar of the English language" (1985), Longman