영어 학술논문에 나타난 just의 분포와 기능
The Distribution and Functions of Just in a Corpus of Academic Research Articles
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study examines the distribution and functions of the polysemous adverb just in academic written English, focusing on disciplinary variation and the interaction with the writer’s English competence. A corpus consisting of research articles published in both overseas and domestic journals was compiled from three disciplines: English literature, applied linguistics, and science and engineering. The meaning categories of just were classified into six groups: exclusive focus markers, particularizers (specificatory, comparative, exact), diminishers, and emphasizers. The analysis of the corpus showed that the frequency of just was very low compared to spoken academic English. Among the three disciplines, literature articles contained the highest tokens of just, converging to the observation that the writing style of this field is rather informal. Each discipline had its own preference regarding the meaning categories and collocational patterns, reflecting the characteristics of the discipline. Non-native writers differed from their native counterparts in their use of just in accordance with discipline-specific patterns. Overall, the use of just is shown to be influenced by various factors, such as text type, discipline-specific writing style, and the writer’s English competence. Future research comparing the functions of just and similar adverbs (e.g. only, merely) is expected to provide a more comprehensive picture of the behavior of this small word.
Abstract
This study examines the distribution and functions of the polysemous adverb just in academic written English, focusing on disciplinary variation and the interaction with the writer’s English competence. A corpus consisting of research articles published in both overseas and domestic journals was compiled from three disciplines: English literature, applied linguistics, and science and engineering. The meaning categories of just were classified into six groups: exclusive focus markers, particularizers (specificatory, comparative, exact), diminishers, and emphasizers. The analysis of the corpus showed that the frequency of just was very low compared to spoken academic English. Among the three disciplines, literature articles contained the highest tokens of just, converging to the observation that the writing style of this field is rather informal. Each discipline had its own preference regarding the meaning categories and collocational patterns, reflecting the characteristics of the discipline. Non-native writers differed from their native counterparts in their use of just in accordance with discipline-specific patterns. Overall, the use of just is shown to be influenced by various factors, such as text type, discipline-specific writing style, and the writer’s English competence. Future research comparing the functions of just and similar adverbs (e.g. only, merely) is expected to provide a more comprehensive picture of the behavior of this small word.
참고문헌 (22)
- Aijmer, K., "English Discourse Particles : Evidence from a Corpus" (2002), John Benjamins
- Biber, D., "Grammatical Complexity in Academic English : Linguistic Change in Writing" (2016), Oxford University Press
- Biber, D., "Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English" (1999), Longman
- Charles, M., "Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse", pp.152~169 (2011), Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
- Ghesquière, L., "Exploring Intensification", pp.33~54 (2017), John Benjamins
- Gibbs, R., "Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics:Selected Papers from the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference", pp.213~239 (2001), John Benjamins
- Grant, L. E., "The Frequency and Function of Just in New Zealand Academic and General Spoken English", New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 17(1), pp.1~16 (2011)
- Kishner, J., "How Just Gets its Meanings : Polysemy and Context in Psychological Semantics", Language and Speech, 39(1), pp.19~36 (1996)
- König, E., "The Meaning of Focus Particles : A Comparative Perspective" (1991), Routledge
- Lee, D. A., "The Semantics of Just", Journal of Pragmatics, 11(3), pp.377~398 (1987)
- Lee, D. A., "Categories in the Description of Just", Lingua, 83(1), pp.43~66 (1991)
- Lin, Y-C., "A Corpus-based Study of Native Speakers’ and Taiwanese EFL Learners’ Use of the Adverb Just", Corpora, 17, pp.99~117 (2022)
- Lindemann, S., ""It’s Just Real Messy" : The Occurrence and Function of Just in a Corpus of Academic Speech", English for Specific Purposes, 20, pp.459~475 (2001)
- Molina, C., "JUST Revisited : Panchronic and Contrastive Insights", International Journal of English Studies, 12(1), pp.17~36 (2012)
- Nevalainen, T., "Studies in Early Modern English", pp.243~259 (1994), Mouton de Gruyter
- "Oxford English Dictionary" (2003)[URL]
- Quirk, R., "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" (1985), Longman
- Rooth, M., "A Theory of Focus Interpretation", Natural Language Semantics, 1, pp.75~116 (1992)
- Swan, M., "Practical English Usage" (1995), Oxford University Press
- Traugott, E. C., "The Handbook of the History of English", pp.335~359 (2006), John Wiley & Sons, Inc
- Wierzbicka, A., "Cross-Cultural Pragmatics : The Semantics of Human Interaction" (1991), De Gruyter Mouton
- Wolde, E. T., "Modification as a Linguistic ‘Relationship’ : A just so Problem in Functional Discourse Grammar", Open Linguistics, 8, pp.699~720 (2022)