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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학위논문
- 저자정보
- 지도교수
- 김경열
- 발행연도
- 2021
- 저작권
- 강원대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다.
이용수11
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (3)
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The purpose of this study is to investigate the need for a pragmatic approach of choice between interchangeable tenses. Based on the analysis of grammar textbooks and a survey of two subject groups, native speakers and Korean non-native speakers, this study explores the reasons why a pragmatic view is needed when the speaker makes an appropriate choice between English particular tenses(i.e.,「Simple Past vs. Present Perfect」,「Simple Past vs. Past Perfect」and Future expressions) in language-use.
In general, there are certain types of tense-aspect combinations that seem fixed in English grammar level. However, from a pragmatic point of view, their boundary may be blurred and closely tied to a three-dimensional perspective. From the survey-based analysis of native and korean non-native speakers, the major findings are shown as follows; 1) Present Perfect or Past Perfect can be replaced with Simple Past, which means linguistically tense-extension may be allowed between adjacent tenses by native speakers. In addition, it was found that language users(i.e. speakers) are likely to fail to grasp the meaning of ''current relevance'' that serves as a pragmatic distinguishing factor in the choice of 「Simple Past vs. Present Perfect」. 2) Tense-extension implies the resilient characteristic of English particular tense and aspect, which allows language users/speakers to make a flexible choice. 3) The pairing-relation of Present Perfect and particular time-adverbials (i.e., since, until now, for, so far) shows the mismatch in real language-use unlike the concept of Present Perfect described in the Korean version of English grammar textbooks.
As a result, the interchangeability between adjacent tenses implies that English particular tenses may have the resilient characteristic linguistically. In other words, the resilience of English tenses is one of pragmatic characteristic in tense-choice, which allows language users/speakers to make a better choice. Accordingly, the language users''/speakers'' choice between certain tenses should be recognized through a pragmatic lens, since English tenses are closely tied to a three dimensional perspective, and show a wide range of flexibility, not fixed to the grammatical level.
Finally, the choice and use of tense should be viewed not by a grammatical category but from a pragmatic view(i.e. non-grammatical category). For this reason, the shift from a grammatical category to pragmatic dimension might be needed for both Korean English teachers and Korean English leaners.
In general, there are certain types of tense-aspect combinations that seem fixed in English grammar level. However, from a pragmatic point of view, their boundary may be blurred and closely tied to a three-dimensional perspective. From the survey-based analysis of native and korean non-native speakers, the major findings are shown as follows; 1) Present Perfect or Past Perfect can be replaced with Simple Past, which means linguistically tense-extension may be allowed between adjacent tenses by native speakers. In addition, it was found that language users(i.e. speakers) are likely to fail to grasp the meaning of ''current relevance'' that serves as a pragmatic distinguishing factor in the choice of 「Simple Past vs. Present Perfect」. 2) Tense-extension implies the resilient characteristic of English particular tense and aspect, which allows language users/speakers to make a flexible choice. 3) The pairing-relation of Present Perfect and particular time-adverbials (i.e., since, until now, for, so far) shows the mismatch in real language-use unlike the concept of Present Perfect described in the Korean version of English grammar textbooks.
As a result, the interchangeability between adjacent tenses implies that English particular tenses may have the resilient characteristic linguistically. In other words, the resilience of English tenses is one of pragmatic characteristic in tense-choice, which allows language users/speakers to make a better choice. Accordingly, the language users''/speakers'' choice between certain tenses should be recognized through a pragmatic lens, since English tenses are closely tied to a three dimensional perspective, and show a wide range of flexibility, not fixed to the grammatical level.
Finally, the choice and use of tense should be viewed not by a grammatical category but from a pragmatic view(i.e. non-grammatical category). For this reason, the shift from a grammatical category to pragmatic dimension might be needed for both Korean English teachers and Korean English leaners.
목차
Ⅰ. 서 론 -------------------------------------------------------------------11. 연구의 필요성 --------------------------------------------------------22. 연구 목적 -------------------------------------------------------------3Ⅱ. 이론적 배경--------------------------------------------------------------61. 시제와 상 --------------------------------------------------------------62. 시제와 상의 종류 ------------------------------------------------------93. 문법서의 「시제와 상」요약 비교 -----------------------------------104. 시제의 실제언어사용 용례 -------------------------------------------324.1. 단순과거 vs. 현재완료 --------------------------------------------324.2.단순과거 vs. 과거완료 --------------------------------------------354.3. will vs. be going to ----------------------------------------------384.4. 다양한 미래표현들-------------------------------------------------41Ⅲ. 연구방법 및 절차 --------------------------------------------------------471. 연구대상 ----------------------------------------------------------------481.1. 연구대상의 국적분포 ----------------------------------------------491.2. 연구대상의 연령대 -------------------------------------------------491.3. 연구대상의 학력 ----------------------------------------------------501.4. 연구대상군의 직업군 -----------------------------------------------501.5. 연구기간 -------------------------------------------------------------512. 연구 도구 ----------------------------------------------------------------522.1. 설문지1 짧은 문장에서 단순과거 vs. 현재완료 ------------------532.2. 설문지2 긴 대화문에서 단순과거 vs. 현재완료 ------------------562.3. 설문지3 주관식형 단순과거 vs. 현재완료 ------------------------572.4. 설문지4 상황에 어울리는 단순과거 vs. 과거완료 ---------------582.5. 설문지5 미래시제 will vs. be going to -------------------------612.6. 설문지6 다양한 미래표현 -----------------------------------------662.7. 설문지7 주관식형 미래표현 ---------------------------------------672.8. 설문지8 신문기사에 쓰인 다양한 미래 표현 ---------------------69Ⅳ. 연구 결과 및 논의---------------------------------------------------------711. 짧은 문장에서 시제선택: 단순과거 vs. 현재완료 --------------------712. 긴 대화문에서 시제선택: 단순과거 vs. 현재완료 ---------------------763. 주관식형 시제선택: 단순과거 vs. 현재완료 ---------------------------824. 주어진 상황에 어울리는 시제선택: 단순과거 vs. 과거완료 ---------875. 미래시제선택: will vs. be going to ----------------------------------966. 다양한 미래표현 선택 --------------------------------------------------1087. 주관식형 미래표현 -----------------------------------------------------1128. 신문기사에 쓰인 다양한 미래 표현 -----------------------------------118Ⅴ. 결론-----------------------------------------------------------------------127?참고문헌 -------------------------------------------------------------------134?영문초록 -------------------------------------------------------------------137?부록-------------------------------------------------------------------------139
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0