인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
피인용 0
초록·키워드
The study investigates the differences in meaning and usage of the three weak obligation modals, should, ought to and had better, through analyzing the 100-million word British National Corpus data. These three modals are thought to have similar meaning and usages, which can easily confuse L2 learners. Grammar references provide some information on the differences between these modals, which are sometimes contradictory as well as incomprehensive. The analysis of authentic data suggests that these three weak obligation modals do have differences in use, which can be best understood when considered in the context in which they are used. Specifically, the quantitative. analysis suggests had better is used mostly with personal pronoun subjects, while should is used more frequently with general noun subjects. The subsequent qualitative analysis sheds more light on the usage patterns of these modals. For example, the deontic force of should differs depending on the subject types it is used with. In addition, the use of had better entails extended discourse with contexts and explanations hedging its "directness." As such, the subject of the sentence as well as the context in which these modals are used is found to play a significant role in their choice. The study provides pedagogical data, which can be useful in class when teaching these modals. Furthermore, it shows the importance of context in which a certain lexical and grammatical item is used.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
