The aim of this dissertaion is to explore the universal understanding of adversative conjunction through the comparison between adversative conjunction in Chinese and Korean. Many previous studies have focused on the explanation of the grammatical str...
The aim of this dissertaion is to explore the universal understanding of adversative conjunction through the comparison between adversative conjunction in Chinese and Korean. Many previous studies have focused on the explanation of the grammatical structures and rules of adversative conjunction, as well as the relation and ostension of connective marker between adversative conjunction. It is easy to identify the grammatical structures, however, the research of semantic relation and semantic function can only greatly rely on the objective judgement of researchers, which has great limitation. Therefore, to obtain more objective basis, this dissertaion uses some cognitive linguistics theories such as prototype theory, frame theory and relevance theory, combines with the result of previous researches on language development in children and diachronic evolution of adversative conjunction, and introduces corpus and questionnaire data as auxiliary material. Specific research process is as follows:
In Chapter 2, first the mode of understanding for all human beings is defined through the application of frame theory, and thus the frame and its mobility models are established on the basis of the sentence order of the adversative conjunction. As a knowledge hierarchy for understanding concept, frame appears in our brains in the form of nerve and each sentence constituent also has its corresponding frame in compound sentences. At a macroscopic level, semantic progress of compound sentence can be regarded as the moving of the frame for each sentence constituent. If the former clause is perceived as the background knowledge for understanding the latter, the former and the latter clauses can both be deemed as independent frames. The speaker activates the frame of the hearer through words and the the hearer chooses one of the elements that form the frame and proceeds. In this way, adversative conjunction can be regarded as the moving of concept frame and this cognitive process can be shown in a 3D coordinate figure which differentiates semantic relation between contrast and counter-expectation as well as demenstrates that adversative conjunction have the most complicated moving process among all the other compound sentences.
Then, the ostension relation between transitivity and connective marker of the formrer clause and content of the latter clause is confirmed through relevance theory combined with questionnaire data. With relevance in communication as its precondition, relevance theory claims that after receiving the encoded message provided by the speaker, the hearer will decode it, in which the more accurate the message is, the simpler the decoding process will be. In adversative conjunction, the former clause and the latter arrive at universally opposite inferences. Therefore, if the speaker takes the hearer into full account, adequate information can be given in the former clause for ostension. Ostension of adversative conjunction is observed in the questionnaire and the result is that the former clause with strong transitivity can provide more information, however, there is no clear evidence for significant correlation between transitivity and ostension. Nevertheless, more often it is connective marker between the sentences that offers ostension.
In Chapter 3, the relations between compound sentences are clarified and thus the prototype of adversative conjunction is discovered through the combination of the researches on Korean children's language development and diachronic evolution of adversative conjunction. Children's language develops from simple to complex and from concrete to abstract, and through this development the relation between compound sentences can be found. In children's language, coordinate clauses appears first, then comes sequence clauses and explaining clauses. In sequence clauses, causality relation and conditional relation are fixed as causal inference, while the opposite relation is adversative relation. Therefore, the definition for adversative relation can be used to define counter-expectation. Through the above results the relation between contrast and adversative relation is found out and problem concerning the definition of "-는데" is solved. Contrast and adversative relation have the same connective marker and both refer to counter-expectation semantically, so there is no need to distinguish them. '-는데' appears very early in children's language development and can be used to connect most clauses, hence, it's not appropriate to classify it into adversative relation and should be classed into a new kind of compound sentence.
이 논문은 한·중 대립 접속문을 대비하여 대립 접속문에 관한 보편적인 인식을 검토하는 데 목적이 있다. 기존 연구에서는 주로 대립 접속문의 통사 구조나 통사 제약을 밝히거나 대립 접속...
|
