Earticle

The purpose of the study is to analyse patterns of anaphoric resolution focusing on Asian learners’ writing. For this end, three Asian learners’ essays (Korean, Chinese, Japanese) are used to investigate the resolution of demonstrative anaphora (this/these, that/those) regarding anaphoric distance, types of anaphoric reference, anaphoric boundary. First, the anaphoric distance is measured by word numbers between antecedents and anaphora. Second, the types of anaphoric reference are classified by their grammatical structure such as nouns, phrases, sentences. Third, the investigation of an anaphoric boundary focuses sentence position of antecedents: intrasentential and intersentential anaphora. The result shows that the Asian learners’ patterns of anaphoric resolution patterns are different from those of native learners. Furthermore, Asian learners are not likely to have consistent patterns when they apply their opinions through the resolution system of demonstrative anaphora. (Busan University of Foreign Studies)

Kes in HiRC constructions cannot be an expletive such as there or it in English. More specifically, kes in HiRC constructions is a demonstrative anaphoric proform referring to the preceding subject or object within the relative clause. Kes in HiRC constructions bears phi-features such as person or number and semantic contents. Kes in HiRC constructions is an anaphoric pronominal: that is, kes in HiRC constructions bears an anaphoric property, even though it is not c-commanded (Kwon 2010). Kes in HiRC constructions can be substituted by the demonstrative anaphor ku casin ‘the himself’ or ku kes ‘the thing’, according to whether it refers to the preceding [+human] or [-human] singular subject or object within the relative clause. Principle A cannot regulate the demonstrative anaphor ku casin. In this vein, it has been shown that the demonstrative anaphoric proform kes in HiRC constructions is compatible, even though it is not c-commanded by its precedent: that is, the demonstrative anaphoric kes in HiRC constructions is Principle A-free. While the donkey anaphora can appear as a pronominal in English, kes in HiRC constructions cannot be replaced by the third person pronoun. Unlike the noun or pronoun kes, kes in HiRC constructions can refer to the respected or the noble, since it can bear the same syntactic and semantic properties as its honorific precedent.

이 연구의 목적은 한국인 학습자들이 사용하는 지시대용어 this와 that을The Givenness Hierarchy 이론을 기반으로 분석했다. 이 이론은 앞서 주어진 정보나 새로운 사건 등을 이후 다시 언급할 때 사용할 수 있는 문법적인 장치로 대용어를 선택하는데 관여하는 6개의 인지상태를 기술하고있다. 이러한 6개의 상태는 화자나 청자가 공유하는 기억, 집중과 같은 인지요소와 관련이 있기 때문에 외국어로서 영어를 학습하는 학습자들은 쉽게 학습하거나 습득하기 어려울 것으로 예상된다. 따라서 이 연구는 한국인 학습자가 this와 that을 6개의 인지상태에 따라 어떻게 사용하고 있는지 원어민 학습자의 패턴과 비교분석하고자 한다. 이를 위해 한국인 학습자 코퍼스와 원어민 학습자 코퍼스(LOCNESS)를 사용하여 이들이 어떤방식으로 인지상태를 선행사와 연결하는지 비교 분석했다. 그 결과 원어민 학습자와 전체적으로 유사한 패턴을 보였지만 In Focus와 Familiar 인지상태에서는 this와 that이 차이를 보였다

The purpose of the study is to investigate Korean learners’ use of demonstrative anaphora, this and that in terms of the Givenness Hierarchy theory. It presents six cognitive statuses which can be applied to the choice of grammatical devices for referring given or new information. Since these statues are related to cognitive elements such as memory and attention which both the speakers and listeners are supposed to share, EFL/ESL learners may have difficulties of determining a proper referential expression. For this end, this paper examines how Korean learners use these two anaphora and compares the patterns of Korean learners with those of native American and British university students. Two learner corpora in this study, the Korean learner corpus and the native learner corpus are contrastively analysed to discover similar or different patterns of using the six cognitive statuses. The results of the study show that the distributional patterns of the statues are similar between Korean and native learners in general. However, Korean learners are different in the cognitive statuses such as In Focus and Familiar.

이 연구의 목적은 외국어로서 영어를 학습하는 한국, 중국, 일본 학습자들이 논쟁적 에세이에서 사용한 지시대용어를 코퍼스 기반으로 분석하는것이다. 구체적으로 지시대용어(this, that, these, those)가 지시형용사와지시대명사로서 어떻게 사용되는지 빈도수 중심으로 학습자 코퍼스International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE)의 하위 코퍼스 중 아시아권 한국, 일본, 중국 학습자 코퍼스를 원어민 학습자 코퍼스(LOCNESS)와 기술적(Descriptive)인 관점에서 분석했다. 본 연구의 결과는 원어민 학습자와 아시아권 학습자들은 지시대용어 사용에 있어 차이를 보이고 있다. 원어민 학습자들이 아시아권 학습자들에 비해 많은 지시대용어를 사용하는 것으로 나타났다. 지시대용에 중에는 this를 가장 많이 사용했는데 이는 원어민 학습자와 아시아권 학습자들 공통으로 나타났다. 아시아권 학습들의 지시대용어 사용 패턴의 차이도 보이는데 한국인 학습자의 패턴이 가장 특징적이다. 한국인 학습자들은 that을 비교적많이 사용했고 지시대명사와 지시형용사 사용에 유의미한 차이를 보이지않았다. 다시 말하면 한국인 학습자들이 사용하는 that을 지시대명사와지시형용사를 사용하는데 빈도수의 관점에 차이가 없다. 하지만 원어민학습자와 중국, 일본 학습자들은 유의미한 차이를 보이고 있다.

The purpose of the study is to investigate Asian learners’ use of anaphora used in their argumentative essays. Specifically, the study focuses demonstrative anaphora (this, that, these, those) extracted from learner corpora (Korean, Chinese, Japanese) of the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) in terms of demonstrative pronouns and demonstrative adjectives. The method of data analysis is to compare their frequency patterns of the four demonstrative anaphora with those of a native learner corpus, LOCNESS. The results of the study show that Asian learners use less demonstrative anaphora than native learners in their essays. Among three Asian learners, Korean learners have distinctive patterns of using that. They have the highest frequency of that as a demonstrative adjective rather than a demonstrative pronoun. Interestingly, Korean learners are not likely to have a distinction between demonstrative pronouns and adjectives from a perspective of frequency when they deal with their opinions in the arguing situation. Other Asian learners and native learners have clear difference between the use of demonstrative pronouns and adjectives.

This paper investigates the anaphoric use of Russian distal demonstrative pronoun tot and its relation with intrinsic deictic function, comparing Russian, Polish, Czech and Bulgarian texts of "Crime and punishment". Slavic demonstratives, such as Russian distal demonstrative pronoun tot, Polish proximal demonstrative pronoun ten, Czech proximal demonstrative pronoun ten and Bulgarian distal demonstrative pronoun onzi, can refer to a non-preferred center of the antecedent utterance and indicate the digression or the change of narrative structure. Not only in the situation that the gender and the number of backward centers are identical and coreferential ambiguity must be removed in the forward utterance, but also in the situation that any specific disambiguation of co-reference is not needed because of different genders or numbers of backward centers, Russian distal demonstrative pronoun tot is predominantly used to indicate a nonpreferred center of the antecedent utterance. Meanwhile in Polish, Czech and Bulgarian, a nonpreferred center of the backward utterence is co-referred to by demonstrative pronouns mostly when a co-referential disambiguation is required. Especially Bulgarian seems to prefer a personal pronoun than a distal demonstrative pronoun to co-refer to an antecedent non-preferred center even when coreferential disambiguation is required. Unlike Russian that doesn't have other means to disambiguate co-reference, Polish, Czech and Bulgarian unmarked zero-subjects referring to a continuous topic are distinguished from marked explicit pronoun subjects that can indicate the antecedent non-preferred center. In addition Russian distal demonstrative itself is more widely used than Polish, Czech and Bulgarian equivalents. Polish, Czech and Bulgarian distal demonstrative pronouns usually have a deictic function, while Russian distal demonstrative pronoun tot plays a role of an anaphoric pronoun as well as a deictic pronoun. As a distal demonstrative, Russian tot necessarily implies the remoteness of an object, even when it plays a role of an anaphoric pronoun. This deictic meaning is not imcompatible with the coreferential function of "non-preferred" backward center, which was not a speaker's main concern in the antecedent utterance. Hence the function of co-referring to the non-preferred antecedent center extends its sphere and Russian distal tot of this function is more frequently used than Polish and Czech proximal ten of the same function. Some of Russian distal tots with an anaphoric function in the analyzed texts are translated into Polish and Czech distal tamtens, when their intrinsic deictic function seems to be more prominent than co-referential disambiguation. Thus Russian distal demonstrative tot's anaphoric function to refer to a non-preferred center of the antecedent utterance is not irrelevant to its intrinsic deictic meaning and it has been grammaticalized to a significant extent in Russian co-referential system.