analyzing the salient discursive -semantic … · 2018. 7. 3. · on speculation and intention...

ANALYZINGTHESALIENTDISCURSIVE-SEMANTICCHARACTERISTICSOFTHEINTENTIONALSUFFIX~(으)ㄹ래 ANDITSPEDAGOGICALIMPLICATIONSFOREDUCATINGKFLLEARNERS

TYLERMIYASHIROUNIVERSITYOFHAWAI’IATMANOA

Intentional Suffix ~(으)ㄹ래

1. PreviousStudies2. DataandMethodology3. Analysis(QuantitativeandQualitative)4. FindingsandPedagogicalImplications

2

~(으)려고 하다 à ~(으)ㄹ래

1. Previous Studies

Sohn (1999)�“The�intentive suffix�-(을)래 has�obviously�developed�from�~(으)려고해(intending-and-do)�‘intends�to�do’”�

Park (2003),�Yoon (2006)

-COMMISSIVE�SPEECH�ACT�(언약화행)�=>�제안,�약속,�협박,�기타

Austin�(1962)-Commissive:�“to�commit�speaker�to�a�certain�course�of�action”

3

LEE�&�NOH (2003)�

Minor�rule:�-(으)ㄹ래 used�to�make�propositions�or�requests.(19)� a.�(우리)�커피마실래요?�

“우리”�indicates�joint�ownership�of�propositional�content�à (illocutionary�force�of�invitation)

(22)� b.�저 좀도와주실래요?�(청자의행위수반을전제로함)

Euphemistic�phrase�asking�about�listener’s�willingness�à (illocutionary�force�of�command)

Major�rule�vs�Minor�rule

Major�rule:�-(으)ㄹ래 used�to�declare�one’s�intentions/inclination.

4

Huh (2011)�

DECLARATIVE�CONTEXT:DENIAL of�listener’s�(청자) request,�command,�demand,�etc.The�speaker�has�to�be�denying a�command,�request,�or�other�demand�imposed�

by�the�listener,�otherwise�the�use�of�~(으)ㄹ래 will�result�in�an�awkward�response:�

The�speaker�emphasizes�his/her�insistence�on�going�to�the�movie�theater�without�holding�concern�for�the�listener’s�plans�or�desires.�(Park,�2006)

5

A. 주말에 무엇을 하세요? 저는 주말에 영화관에 갈래요.

*

B.�주말에 바다에 갈까요?아니요, 저는 주말에 영화관에 갈래요.

INTERROGATIVE�CONTEXT:DENIAL of�speaker’s�(화자) will,�intention,�or�opinion

~(으)ㄹ래 is�also�used�by�the�speaker�to�deny his/her�own�opinion�in�order�to�place��focus completely�on�the�listener’s�course�of�action.

뭐 드실래요?

너 정말 말 안 들을래?

Depending�on�whether�the�proposition�(명제)�is�of�benefit�or�detriment�to�the�listener,�use�of�~(으)ㄹ래 to�place�exclusive�focus�on�the�listener’s�intentions�will�result�in�an�effect�of�consideration�(배려)�or�reproach�(책망)��

LISTENER’S�UNILATERAL�IMPACT�ON�A�RESULTANT�COURSE�OF�ACTION

6

Huh (2011)

Jang�(2017)

DECLARATIVE�CONTEXT:

MOMENT�OF�DECISION &�UTTERANCE OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY

(12) 가:�뭐 마실거야?�메뉴정했어?

나:�ㄱ.�(Looks�at�the�menu�for�the�first�time)�난 녹차마실래.�

VS

ㄴ.�(Has�already�seen�the�menu�before�coming�to�the�café)�난 녹차마실거야.

7

*�Rather�than�a�direct�order�or�proposition,�a�counterparts’�intentions�serve�as�a�precondition.

*�Although�-(으)ㄹ래 is�often�used�to�express�a�speaker’s�oppositional�stance�to�a�counterparts’�

proposals,��suggestions,�etc.�there�are�imes when�a�speaker’s�utterance�is�merely�unrelated/tangential.

Jang�(2017)�

INTERROGATIVE�CONTEXT:

ASKING�FOR�LISTENER’S�CURRENT INCLINATION OF�THE�VERY�MOMENT

(14) ㄱ.�나랑결혼해줄래?�

ㄴ.�나랑결혼해주겠니?�

ㄷ.�나랑결혼해줄거야?�

(15)�(죽어가는상황에서)�내가죽으면어머니옆에 ㄱ.�묻어줄래?�

ㄴ.�묻어주겠니?

ㄷ.�묻어줄거야?

8

Suh�&�Jang (2012)�

1)�Speaker�&�Listener’s�Relationship: Sense�of�familiarity�is�necessary

2) Nature�of�the�Request:�The�addressee�must�feel�little�to�no�sense�of�burden

* 화자의심리:�청자의의지및의향을묻는다소완곡한화법(speech)으로봄 =>�간접적인요청

a.�Expressing�consideration�of�the�addressee’s�체면: condescending,�presumptive?�

b.�Expectation�that�the�request�will�be�granted:�due�to�ease�of�the�request?�authority?

9

2. Data and Methodology

LinguisticDataConsortium(LDC)KoreanCorpus

32tokens

드라마,예능프로그램64tokens

10

2. Data and MethodologyLinguisticDataConsortium(LDC)KoreanCorpus

11

Declarative Interrogative

거부[+] 거부[-]

or…Other?

협박/�책망

요청/�명령

제안/�청유

의지문의

3. Analysis (Quantitative)

Interrogative(의문문)

Declarative(서술문)

25 (78.1%) 7 (21.9%)

제안/청유

요청/명령

협박/ 책망

의지문의

거부[-] 거부[+]

7(21.9%)

9(28.1%)

2(6.3%)

7(21.9%)

1(6.3%)

6(18.8%)

요[-]6

요[+]1

요[-]8

요[+]1

요[-]2

요[+]

요[-]6

요[+]1

요[-]1

요[+]

요[-]6

요[+]

LinguisticDataConsortium(LDC)KoreanCorpus

12

3. Analysis (Qualitative)(1)[ko_6551](0:00-0:25)01A:언니.02B:응.03A:음.됐어.잠 깼어?04B:(0.2)음::깨야지 인제.05A:깨야지인제?몇 신데?네 신데@@06B:[응.07A:[@@]캡이다.근데나지금막 졸린 거알아?08B:[@@@09 A:[@@@]웃지마.10 B:웃을래.11A:@@@어저께밤에안봤거든:12B:응.

(EXPLICITREJECTION)ofA’scommand tonotlaugh

13

3. Analysis (Qualitative)(2)[ko_6551](6:48-7:07)

01 A:조금 찢어졌구나 이게 발이:몰랐어.02B:뭐?곰?03 A:응.근데안 꿰맬래.

04B:왜?05 A:(.)그냥.06B:솜나온다.07A:솜?

08B:(0.5)아니.곰속에있는거.솜09A:그러게.á10B:나올걸.á11A:아닐걸.

12B:내가 가서빼야지.13A:(@@@)참나이 <@아줌마가@>

(IMPLICITREJECTION)ofsituationallydemarcatedcourseofactiontosewthedoll

14

3. Analysis (Qualitative)

(3)[ko_6559](6:05-6:25)

01B:@@@너네 <Englishspringbreak>언제니?02A:우리?모르겠어 확실히.삼 월 초겠지.á음.03B:응.우리도 그 때거든.04 A:응:.그래갖고 뭐 할 계획이야?05 B:아휴.글쎄뭐할까?<Englishspringbreak>=에너네집에나 갈까?06 A:올래?07B:봐서 그래서 동[쪽-]여기서 몇 시간 걸리니?08A:[어.]여기서?가만있어 봐.09B:세목씨께 여쭤 봐.10A:음.세목씨거기까지 한 몇 시간 걸릴까?여덟 시간은 걸릴 거 같아.11B:<Englishminimum>여덟시간?

(ANTICIPATIONOFAFFILIATIVESTANCE)basedonprevious proposition

15


(4)[ko_6262](0:34-1:15)

01B:형,형,형.

02A:응?

03 B:저기뭐야,거-거- 거기 크리스마스때 어디가세요?

04 A:나?어디 안 가지.

05 B:거기 계실 거예요?

06A:응.

07B:어:또 놀러 가야지,그럼.@@

08A:너여기와?어,그래.놀러와라그러면.

09B:예.놀러 갈께요.

10A:너,((이번))집으로 놀러 와라 그러면.밥먹고 해라.

11B:<@네@>

12A:시간있으면.@@

22A:<EnglishHouston>에너집에갔다가이리로

올 거지?

23 B:네.형 <EnglishHouston>에 내려오실래요?

24A:((어,그-))<EnglishHouston>=에?

25B:예.

26 A:@@내가 <EnglishHouston>에 가가지고 뭐

하겠냐?

27B:하기야.

28A:@@

29 B:근데형,저기뭐야,<English^Huston>=에

한번 와보셨나?한번이라도?

30A:그렇지.갔지.

PRESUMPTIVEANTICIPATION

16


(5)[ko_5969](15:03-15:28)01 A:@@@술 사 준다는 거어떻게 할래?02B:어?03A:@@@04 B:뭐라고?05 A:술 사 준다는 거 어떻게 할래?06B:((술사))?07A:어,술.08B:(1.0)술 산다고?09A:응.10B:내가 언제 그랬어?11 A:그랬잖아 저번에.12 B:아한국 오면?13A:어.

14 B: 한국을 와야지 사 주지@@15 A: @@나 많이 마시는데 많이 사 줄 수 있냐?16 B: 너 많이 마시니?17 A: 어.18 B: 얼만큼 마셔?19 A: 아이 그냥 마실 만큼 마실 거야. 아주 뭐

술고래는 아니지만.

ANTICIPATIONOFAFFILIATIVESTANCE basedonpreviousproposition

17

Declarative�

- 청자에게 의향 및 자신의 희망 사항을 밝히고 형식적 허락 구함.

- 화자가 문장의 내용을 현재의 사실로 인지하고 있음.

- 들을 사람의 명령,�부탁,�청유 등에 대한 거부가 전제에 있음.

- 청자의 명령,�부탁보다 ‘화자의 청자 의중에 대한 인식’이 전제되어 있음.

- 화자의 의지가 청자의 요구와 상관이 없다고 생각할 경우에도 사용됨.

Interrogative

- 질문자의 의지를 배제함 =>�들을 사람의 온전한 의지를 묻기 위한 질문

- 들을 사람에게 이득 [+]�=> 배려 vs��들을 사람에게 이득 [-]�=> 책망

- 소규칙 1:�제안과 청유 =>�명제의 내용을 상대화 공유하고자 함

- 소규칙 2:�부탁과 요청 =>�청자의 행위 수반을 전제로 하고 있음

18

4. Findings and Pedagogical ImplicationsDECLARATIVE CONTEXT:

Unrestrained�assertion of�speaker’s�volition made�through�proclamation�of�his/her�aspirations�coupled�with�an�indication�of�imminent�realization,�highlighted�as�ephemerally�negotiated�but�deserving�recognition�as�a

justifiable alternative to situationally�demarcated�courses�of�action�(COA).�

(IMPLICIT�VS�EXPLICIT�REJECTION)

INTERROGATIVE CONTEXT:

Indirect�projection�of�speaker’s anticipation�for�addressee’s�affiliative�stance�towards contemporaneously�revealed,�situationally�demarcatedcourses�of�action,�conducted�through�customary,�nonchalant�calibration�of�addressee’s�willingness�based�on�premise�of�insight�into�the�addressee’s�predispositions.

(ANTICIPATION�OF�AFFILIATIVE�STANCE�THROUGH�CUSTOMARY�CALIBRATION)

19

4. Findings and Pedagogical ImplicationsMAKING STATEMENTS:Youcanuse(으)ㄹ래 forsituationsinwhichyouwouldliketoemphaticallyassertyourownabilitytomakeyourowndecisions,whichcanpossiblyruncontrarytothespecificopinionsofthepeoplearound,ordivergefrompre-conceivednotionsofwhatisexpectedtobedone.*Insmallgroups,thinkofascenariotopracticeusing-(으)ㄹ래 inastatement.Trytocreateaskitandpreparetoshareitwiththerestoftheclass!

MAKING QUESTIONS:Youcanuse-(으)ㄹ래 forsituationsinwhichyoufeelconfidentthatthelistenerwillhaveafavorableresponsetoyoursuggestionorrequest.Thisshouldbebasedonknowledgeandinsightaboutthelisteneraswellastheconditionsthatwouldmakeyoursuggestionorrequestsoundfavorable.*Insmallgroups,thinkofascenariotopracticeusing-(으)ㄹ래 inaquestion.Trytocreateaskitandpreparetoshareitwiththerestoftheclass!

20

Inductive Learning Through Media (Example 1)

(Declarative,�EXPLICIT�REJECTION)

21

(Declarative,�EXPLICIT�REJECTION)


22

(Declarative,�IMPLICIT�REJECTION)


23

(Interrogative, ANTICIPATION�OF�AFFILIATIVE�STANCE)


24

(Interrogative, ANTICIPATION�OF�AFFILIATIVE�STANCE)


25

ReferencesAustin,J.(1962),HowtodoThingswithWords,TheWilliamJamesLectures,OxfordUniversityPress.Huh,K.(2011)‘AStudyontheMeaningof‘-eulge’and‘-eulrae’,’TheLanguageandCulture7-2:215-233

Lee,Y.,Noh,J.(2003)‘AStudyonKoreanModalExpressions:‘chwuchuk’kwa ‘uyci’lul cwungsimulo-,’[FocusonSpeculationandIntentionExpressions]JournalofKoreanLanguageEducation14:pp.173-209.

Jang,C.,Seo,J.(2012)‘TheStudyonPresentationMethodofContextualInformationinKoreanTextbookforForeignStudents:cheng phyohyen ‘-(u)llay(yo)?'lul cwungsimulo’[FocusontheRequestiveExpressionof–(u)llay(yo)],Hankwuk Mwunpep Kyoyuk Hakhoy:pp.121-130.

Jang,C.(2017)‘AComparativeStudyoftheMeaningsofIntentionExpressionsinKorean:Focusedon-gess-,-eulgeosi-,-eulge(yo),-eulrae(yo),’Hankwuke Uymihak 56:1-34.

Park,S.(2006)‘ComparisontheDegreeforExpressionsofIntention,’TheLanguageandCulture2-2:21-40Sohn,H.(1999)TheKoreanLanguage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Yoon,E.(2006)‘AStudyonModalityinKorean-Modalendings‘-eulrae’and‘-eulge’,’TheLanguageand

Culture2-2:31-63박용익(2003),“화행의유형학”,2003대화분석연구회워크샵강의자료 ,대화분석연구회.

26

analyzing the salient discursive -semantic … · 2018. 7. 3. · on speculation and intention...

Documents