Lanaguage Research
Language Education Institute, Seoul National University
Language Education

영어 -ly 유형 인식견지부사의 담화표지 기능 이해도 분석: 한국인 EFL 학습자와 원어민 화자를 대상으로

이유라1, 유석훈1,
Youra Lee1, Seok-Hoon You1,
Corresponding Author: 교수 언어학과 고려대학교 02841 서울시 성북구 안암로 145 E-mail: syou@korea.ac.kr

ⓒ Copyright 2020 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Oct 31, 2020 ; Revised: Dec 16, 2020 ; Accepted: Dec 24, 2020

Published Online: Dec 31, 2020

ABSTRACT

English -ly adverbials (LY) with epistemic modality are frequently used as discourse markers (DM) in spoken language. In this paper, LY DM is defined as an epistemic stance marker. The experiment for this study aims to analyze Korean EFL learners' comprehension of LY used as a DM on the basis of the hypothesis that they would perceive LY differently from how English native speakers perceive them. In order to conduct the experiment, previous studies on DMs were thoroughly examined to establish the theoretical framework. Based on the framework, the Discourse Marker Interpretation Test (DMIT) was designed. The research data collected through the test were analyzed using quantitative methods. Additionally, interviews were conducted to supplement the interpretation of the research results. The experiment mainly determined that, unlike English native speakers, who properly interpreted LY with their DM function, Korean EFL learners are inclined to interpret LY used as DMs simply with their lexical meanings (the dictionary definition). Results suggest that there is a high possibility for Korean EFL learners to commit more errors when encountering LY DMs.

Keywords: discourse marker function; epistemic stance adverbials; epistemic modality; hedge; -ly adverbs; Korean EFL learners

References

1.

김지은. (1998). 『우리말 양태용언 구문 연구』, 서울: 한국문화사 .

2.

김혜영. (2011). 남성과 여성의 사적 대화에서 발화 특성 연구: 담화 기능 분석을 중심으로, 『언어와언어학』, 53, 89-108, 한국외국어대학교 언어연구소 .

3.

명정희. (2018). 인식양태 구성들의 비교 연구 -판단자와 판단증거를 중심으로-, 『한국언어학회 학술대회지』, 99-112 .

4.

서경희. (2016). 담화표지. 김해연 (편), 『현대영어학총서9』 (pp. 121-169). 종합출판EnG .

5.

서정곤, 김건희. (2009). 의존명사 구문의 양태적 고찰, 『한국어학』, 44, 177-212 .

6.

안동환, 이상도. (1993). 영어 서법조동사와 서법부사의 통사적 특성, 『새한영어영문학』, 28, 231-258, 새한영어영문학회 .

7.

이기갑. (2006). 한국어의 양태(modality) 표현, 『담화․인지언어학회 학술대회 발표논문집』, 67-84, 담화·인지언어학회 .

8.

이은주. (2010). 한국 대학생 영어 학습자 코퍼스에 나타난 견지 부사구 (Stance Adverbials)의 사용, 『언어학』, 17(3), 347-366, 한국외국어교육학회 .

9.

이원표. (2001). 『담화분석: 방법론과 화용 및 사회언어학적 연구의 실례』, 서울: 한국문화사 .

10.

이찬규, 노석영. (2012). 의사소통에서 나타나는 울타리 표현의 특성에 관한 연구 -홈쇼핑 발화 자료를 중심으로, 『화법연구』, 21, 245-286, 한국화법학회 .

11.

이한규. (2011). 한국어 담화표지어 '예'의 의미, 『현대문법연구』, 65, 171-197, 현대문법학회 .

12.

임규홍. (2004). 성별에 따른 국어 담화 표지 사용 모습: 중․고등학생 이야기대화를 바탕으로, 『어문학』, 83, 93-113, 한국어문학회 .

13.

표시연. (2018). L2 영어 에세이에 나타난 완화표지 사용 양상 : 견지 부사구와 서법조동사를 중심으로, 『응용언어학』, 34(2), 3-30, 한국응용언어학회 .

14.

옥스퍼드 영영사전 https://www.lexico.com/en/english .

15.

케임브리지 영한사전 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-korean .

16.

Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles, evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins .

17.

Aijmer, K. (2013). Analyzing Modal Adverbs as Modal Particles and Discourse Markers. In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description (pp. 89-106). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins .

18.

Altenberg, B., & Aijmer, K. (2000). The English-Swedish parallel corpus: A resource for contrastive research and translation studies. Language and Computers, 33, 15-34 .

19.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leec, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London, UK: Pearson Education .

20.

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford, UK: Blackwell .

21.

Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances: An introduction to pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell .

22.

Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter .

23.

Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial Marking of Stance in Speech and Writing. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 56-73). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press .

24.

Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic Markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167-190 .

25.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are Discourse Markers?. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952 .

26.

Fung, L. & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410-439 .

27.

Gupta, A. F. (2006). Epistemic modalities and the discourse particles of Singapore. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles. studies in pragmatics, Vol. 1 (pp. 244-263). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier .

28.

Hansen, M. M. (1997). Alors and Donc in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(2), 153-187 .

29.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins .

30.

Jucker, A. H. (1993). The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(5), 435-452 .

31.

Karkkainen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins .

32.

Lee, H. (2005). The variable acquisition of discourse marker use in Korean American Speakers of English. English Language & Literature Teaching, 11(2), 1-88 .

33.

Lee, Y. (2016). Aspects of discourse markers elicited from pseudo-spontaneous conversational English speech. Korean Journal of Communication Studies, 24(4), 27-51 .

34.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .

35.

Lewis, D. M. (2006). Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Studies in Pragmatics, Vol. 1 (pp. 43-59). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier .

36.

Ostman, J. O. (1982). The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech. In N. E. Enkvist (ed.), Impromptu Speech: A Symposium (pp. 147-177). Berkeley, CA: University of California .

37.

Park, E. J. (2017). The cultural aspect of discourse markers among non-native english-korean communication. Journal of British & American Studies, 39, 201-234 .

38.

Park, Y. Y. (2003). Characteristics of NNS talk in oral interview. English Teaching, 58(3), 41-68 .

39.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, UK: Longman .

40.

Schiffrin, D. (1982). Discourse markers: Semantic resource for the construction of conversation. Doctoral dissertations, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia .

41.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .

42.

Schiffrin, D. (1998). Approaches to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 3(29), 355-359 .

43.

Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 3, 227-265 .

44.

Stenstrom, A. B. (1994). An introduction to spoken interaction. London, UK: Longman .

45.

Suh, K. H. (2011). The social meanings of discourse markers in Valspeak. Journal of British & American Studies, 25, 157-186 .

46.

White, A. (2011). Two Korean EFL learners' use of discourse markers in performing a spoken reformulation task. English Language Teaching, 23(4), 205-224 .