축약형 담화표지 “좀/막”에 대한 연구 (A Study on the Meaning and Function on Shortened-form Discourse Markers {jom, mak})

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국사전학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국사전학 / 14호 / 199 ~ 223페이지
· 저자명 : 안주호

초록

Generally, discourse markers have little semantic meaning in themselves and do
not contribute to truth-conditional contents because they are non-propositional.
But they may contribute to the pragmatic functions of utterances and play an
important role in the speaker’s pragmatic competence.
In this study, I aim to find out the meaning and function of discourse markers
{jom, mak}. Originally, {jom} and {mak} were shortened-forms from adverbs
{jogeum, maku}, but these two morphemes which are now found frequently in
discourse don’t function as adverbs. Other characteristics of {jom} are that from
the synchronic point of view it represents a change from the adverbial category to
the pragmatic category. It is divided four categories: the coherence between the
speaker and hearer(speaking politely), the coherence between the speaker and
topic(utterance highlight), coherence between the speaker and topic(utterance
mitigation), and coherence between the speaker and topic(utterance hesitation).
The discourse marker {mak} is also associated with the meaning of the adverb
{mak}, and therefore it is divided into three categories: the coherence between the
speaker and topic(speaker’s negative manner on topics), the coherence between
the topic and the topic (maintenans of speaker’s speech), and the coherence
between the speaker and hearer(speaker’s intention for attention).

영어초록

Generally, discourse markers have little semantic meaning in themselves and do
not contribute to truth-conditional contents because they are non-propositional.
But they may contribute to the pragmatic functions of utterances and play an
important role in the speaker’s pragmatic competence.
In this study, I aim to find out the meaning and function of discourse markers
{jom, mak}. Originally, {jom} and {mak} were shortened-forms from adverbs
{jogeum, maku}, but these two morphemes which are now found frequently in
discourse don’t function as adverbs. Other characteristics of {jom} are that from
the synchronic point of view it represents a change from the adverbial category to
the pragmatic category. It is divided four categories: the coherence between the
speaker and hearer(speaking politely), the coherence between the speaker and
topic(utterance highlight), coherence between the speaker and topic(utterance
mitigation), and coherence between the speaker and topic(utterance hesitation).
The discourse marker {mak} is also associated with the meaning of the adverb
{mak}, and therefore it is divided into three categories: the coherence between the
speaker and topic(speaker’s negative manner on topics), the coherence between
the topic and the topic (maintenans of speaker’s speech), and the coherence
between the speaker and hearer(speaker’s intention for attention).

참고자료

· 없음