「ノダ」연구에 대한 「関連性理論」의 재검토 -名嶋義直(2007)를 중심으로-

Abstract

In order to understand ‘the essence of 「NODA」’ among the issues discussed in research on 「NODA」 such as essence, the use of various functions, relations of alternants, and relevance to grammatical categories, this study reviews ‘Yoshinao Najima’s research (2007)’. This is theoretically grounded on 「Relevance Theory」 applying pragmatic perspectives to linguistics and is focused on the analysis that has realized inferences through humans’ cognitive processes. The fruition of Yoshinao Najima’s 「NODA」 research (2007) can be said to be ‘the approach to essence’, ‘functions drawn in the process of inference’, and ‘the suggestion of prerequisites in the use of NODA’. This result plays crucial roles in figuring out the essence of 「NODA」, but we should consider several points as below. First, since there is no clear definition or lack of explanation about terms, some parts are hard to understand. One of the representative examples is 「context」. In analyzing 「NODA」, it is important to understand ‘relevance with the prior context’. In fact, misunderstanding the dictionary definition of ‘context’, some mistakenly think it as ‘sentences appearing previously and afterwards’. In such cases, it is impossible to explain 「NODA」 in accidental circumstances. Therefore, this study suggests the new ways of using terms regarding such errorneous terms (「context」→『cognitive environment』, 「contextual effect」→『cognitive effect』, 「contextual implication」→『addition』, 「contradiction and eliminating」→『scavenging』, 「postulation」→『assumption』). Second, there is lack of explanation over ‘essential functions’ and ‘message-delivering functions’. Explicit explanation is given in the functions of ≪explanation≫ and ≪discovery≫ ; however, regarding ≪command, emphasis, and indirect response≫, it may be inferred in each of the functions but the judgment cannot be made certainly as it is not explicit. Third, concerning the types in which 「NODA」 should be used essentially, the criteria of use and the essence of 「NODA」 are presented as ‘accidental and unexpected discovery, simultaneous verbalization, and schemata in situations equipped with low similarity’; however, about the rest types (the cases equipped with high permissibility and those that can be simply omitted), no explanation is given in detail. It is important to find out essential elements in the use of 「NODA」; however, unless we resolve doubts about why it is permitted or why it is used even if it can be just simply omitted, it is hard to approach the essence of 「NODA」. Solving this problem would be the factor to figure out the substance of 「NODA」, and this author suggests it as the task to be handled in follow-up research.