코퍼스 기반 구어체 학문 영어의 메타담화표지 연구 = A Corpus-based Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers in Spoken Academic English

국문 초록 (Abstract)

자신의 의견을 전달하는 과정에서 화자는 청자의 이해와 상호작용을 돕기 위해 다양한 언어 장치를 사용하는데 그 중 대표적인 것이 메타담화이다. 메타담화는 화자 혹은 저자의 관점을 표현하고 텍스트, 화자/저자 및 청자/독자 사이의 관계를 형성하는데 기여하는 중요한 언어적 장치이다. 지난 수십 년 동안 메타담화의 분포와 기능에 대한 많은 연구가 주로 문어체 학문 영어를 중심으로 수행되었다. 구어에서의 메타담화의 기능도 최근 학자들의 주목을 받고 있지만, 이에 대한 연구는 아직 부족한 상황이다.
이러한 연구의 공백을 채우기 위해 본 연구에서는 Halliday(1973)의 <언어의 메타기능> 이론에 기반하여 Hyland(2005a)가 제안한 <대인관계 메타담화 모델>을 활용하여 구어체 학문 영어 말뭉치를 분석하였다. 연구목표를 달성하기 위해 분석한 자료는 영국의 두 대학에서 인문학, 생물학, 물리학, 사회과학 분야의 강의와 세미나를 녹음하고 전사한 British Academic Spoken English(BASE) 말뭉치이며 약 170만 단어로 구성되어 있다.
말뭉치 분석은 양적 및 질적 접근 방식을 적용하여 다음의 내용을 중심으로 수행되었다. (1) 구어체 학문 영어에서의 메타담화 표지의 전체적인 분포와 기능; (2) 메타담화 표지의 학문간 유사성과 차이점; (3) 구어와 문어에서의 메타담화 표지의 유사성과 차이점. 데이터 분석을 통해 도출한 중요한 내용은 다음과 같다.
Hyland(2005a)가 제시한 두 가지 유형의 메타담화 표지 중 구어에서는 인터렉셔널 (interactional) 표지가 인터렉티브(interactive) 표지보다 더 자주 사용되었는데, 이는 Hyland가 문어체 학문 영어 분석에서 관찰한 것과는 반대되는 양상이다. 여러 메타담화 표지가 함께 사용되어 다양한 교육적 목표를 달성하기 위한 도구로 사용되는 경우도 빈번히 관찰되었다. 강의는 강의자가 청중에게 일방적으로 정보를 전달하는 형식이지만 강사와 청중의 상호작용을 돕는 장치로 메타담화가 활발하게 사용된 것으로 볼 수 있다.
메타담화 표지 중 가장 높은 빈도로 사용된 것은 논리어(transitions)인데, Hyland 의 문어 자료 분석에서도 동일한 양상이 관찰되었다. 구어와 문어에서 메타담화의 가장 중요한 기능은 정보의 전달을 촉진하기 위해 텍스트를 논리적이고 일관되게 구성하는 것으로 볼 수 있겠다.
네 학문 분야에서 메타담화의 사용 양상도 차이가 있었다. 물리학 강의에서 인터렉티브 표지가 가장 많이 사용되어 다른 세 학문 분야와 차이를 보였으며, 인터렉셔널 표지의 사용빈도는 인문학, 물리학, 생물학, 사회과학의 순으로 나타났다. 네 학문 분야를 인문과학과 자연과학으로 이분할 수 있는 특징은 관찰되지 않았다.
구어와 문어 담화에서 인터렉티브 메타담화의 경우 구조어(frame markers)를 제외하고 빈도의 순위가 차이가 없었다. 인터렉셔녈 표지 중 참여어(engagement markers)는 구어에서, 유보어(hedges)는 문어에서 가장 빈도가 높았다. 구어와 문어의 차이는 인터렉셔널 표지의 사용에서 더 크게 나타났는데, 이는 구어에서 청중과의 상호작용을 위해 2인칭 대명사를 다수 사용한 것에 기인한다.
본 연구의 결과는 현재 진행 중인 구어에서의 메타담화의 기능에 대한 이론적 논의에 기여를 할 수 있을 것이다. 실용적 측면에서 본 연구의 결과는 학문 영어 교수에 활용될 수 있을 것이다. 교수자는 학생들이 구어의 메타담화의 특징에 주목하도록 함으로써 의사소통 능력 향상에 도움을 줄 수 있다. 영어로 강의를 하는 비원어민 교수자도 학문 분야별 구어체 영어에서 메타담화의 특징에 대해 인지함으로써 학문 분야의 특성에 부합한 방식으로 효과적인 강의를 수행하는 능력이 향상될 수 있을 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Metadiscourse, referred to as ‘discourse about discourse’ (Mauranen, 1993b), is linguistic material associated with interpersonal dimension of language use. It is utilized to expresses the speaker/writer’s viewpoints and to build a relationship among the text, the writer and the reader (Hyland, 2000). Over the past decades, extensive research has been carried out to understand the behaviour of metadiscourse, mostly focusing on academic written texts. Though the distribution and functions of metadiscourse in spoken academic discourse has recently been gaining scholars’ attention, there still are not enough studies to help us understand the functions of metadiscourse in spoken academic language, possible disciplinary variation, and convergence and divergence between spoken and written language.
The present corpus-based study was conducted to fill such a gap in research. The framework adopted by this study is Hyland’s (2005a) interpersonal model of metadiscourse, which builds on Halliday’s theory of metafunctions of language (1973). In order to achieve our research goals, the British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was analysed applying both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The BASE corpus is comprised of 1,734,710 tokens compiled from transcripts of lectures and seminars recorded at two universities in the United Kingdom. This corpus is evenly divided into four disciplines, Arts and Humanities, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences and Social Sciences.
The corpus analysis was undertaken focusing on the following points (1) the overall distribution and the functions of metadiscourse markers in spoken academic English; (2) cross-disciplinary variation in the use of metadiscourse markers; (3) convergence and divergence between spoken and written academic discourse in the use of metadiscourse markers.
The data analysis revealed the following:
Of the two types of metadiscourse markers posited by Hyland (2005a), interactional metadiscourse markers were used more frequently than interactive markers in spoken language, a pattern opposite to what was observed in an analysis of written academic textbooks (Hyland, 2005c). Clusters of metadiscourse were also quite common in the spoken lectures, collaborating to serve as pedagogical tools. It appears then that though the lecture discourse is identified as one-directional monologic communication, it still involves active interaction between the speaker and audience much more than the written academic discourse. The lecturers’ engagement with the audience may have been facilitated by the employment of interactional metadiscourse.
Among all the sub-categories of metadiscourse markers, none is more pervasive than transition markers. The same pattern was observed in the written academic texts as well (Hyland, 2005a). This seems to indicate that the main function of metadiscourse markers both in spoken and written academic discourse is to help construct logical and cohesive texts in order to facilitate transmission of information.
The four disciplines exhibited diverse patterns. The speakers of Physical Science produced the highest number of interactive markers, behaving differently from the speakers in the other three disciplines. With the interactional markers, Arts and Humanities speakers produced the highest numbers, followed by Physical Science, Life Science, and Social Science. The expected division between the soft and hard sciences was not observed in the use of metadiscourse markers.
The comparison of spoken and academic discourse showed that the two language modes did not differ much in the frequency order of the interactive markers except for the frame markers. Among the interactional markers, engagement markers were the most frequent in the spoken corpus while hedges were most commonly used in written texts. The two language modes differed more prominently with the use of interactional markers than interactive makers.
The findings of this study would contribute to the ongoing theoretical discussions on the functions of metadiscourse in spoken academic discourse as compared to written discourse. On the practical side, our findings may be of interest to teachers of academic English. By drawing students’ attention to the features of metadiscourse in speech, teachers may help students become competent communicators of academic spoken English. Non-native speaking instructors and lecturers would also be benefited from our observations. By paying attention to the usage patterns of metadiscourse in the different disciplines, they will be able to improve their ability to interact with their audience in ways specific to their academic community.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Chapter 1 1
• INTRODUCTION 1
• 1.1 Background to the Research 1
• 1.2 Objective and Research Questions 2
• 1.3 Motivation and significance 3
• 1.4 Overview of the Thesis 4
• Chapter 2 5
• LITERATURE REVIEW 5
• 2.1 Definitions and Functions of Metadiscourse 5
• 2.1.1 Halliday's Three Metafunctions of Language 6
• 2.1.2 The Broad Approach 7
• 2.1.3 The Narrow Approach 8
• 2.1.4 The Approach Adopted for the Present Study 9
• 2.2 Classifications of Metadiscourse 10
• 2.2.1 Lautamatti's (1978) Classification 10
• 2.2.2 Vande Kopple's (1985) Classification 11
• 2.2.3 Crismore et al.'s (1993) Classification 13
• 2.2.4 Hyland's (2005a) Classification 14
• 2.2.5 The Foundations of Classification of the Present Study 16
• 2.3 Disciplinary Studies in Academic Spoken Field 17
• 2.3.1 Cross-Disciplinary Research 17
• 2.3.2 Cross-Disciplinary Studies on Academic Spoken English 18
• 2.3.3 Hyland's Interdisciplinary Metadiscourse Study of Written Language 19
• 2.4 Key Principles of Metadiscourse 20
• 2.5 Hyland's Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse 21
• 2.5.1 Interactive Metadiscourse 22
• 2.5.2 Interactional Metadiscourse 25
• 2.6 Summary 29
• Chapter 3 30
• METHODOLOGY 30
• 3.1 Corpus Description 30
• 3.2 Defining Metadiscourse Markers 30
• 3.3 Analysis Procedure 31
• 3.4 Research Methods 34
• Chapter 4 36
• INTERACTIVE METADISCOURSE IN ACADEMIC SPOKEN ENGLISH 36
• 4.1 Overall Distribution of Metadiscourse Markers in the BASE Corpus 36
• 4.2 Interactive Metadiscourse in Academic Spoken English 38
• 4.3 Transition Markers 39
• 4.3.1 Overall Distribution of Transition Markers 39
• 4.3.2 Transition Markers: Addition 40
• 4.3.3 Transition Markers: Comparison 41
• 4.3.4 Transition Markers: Consequence 42
• 4.4 Frame Markers 43
• 4.4.1 Overall Distributions of Frame Markers 43
• 4.4.2 Frame Markers: Sequencing 45
• 4.4.3 Frame Markers: Labeling Stages 46
• 4.4.4 Frame Markers: Announcing Goals 47
• 4.4.5 Frame Markers: Shifting Topics 48
• 4.5 Code Glosses 49
• 4.6 Endophorics 51
• 4.7 Evidentials 52
• 4.8 Comparison of Interactive Metadiscourse among Disciplines in Academic Spoken English 53
• 4.8.1 Similarities 55
• 4.8.2 Differences 56
• 4.9 Comparison Between Spoken and Written Academic English in Interactive Dimension 59
• Chapter 5 63
• INTERACTIONAL METADISCOURSE IN ACADEMIC SPOKEN ENGLISH 63
• 5.1 Interactional Metadiscourse in Academic Spoken English 63
• 5.2 Hedges 64
• 5.2.1 Overall Distribution of Hedges 64
• 5.2.2 Hedges: Modal auxiliaries 65
• 5.2.3 Hedges: Adverbs 67
• 5.2.4 Hedges: Verbs 69
• 5.2.5 Hedges: Adjectives 69
• 5.3 Boosters 70
• 5.3.1 Overall Distribution of Boosters 70
• 5.3.2 Boosters: Verbs 71
• 5.3.3 Boosters: Adverbs 72
• 5.3.4 Boosters: Multiword Expressions 73
• 5.3.5 Boosters: Adjectives 74
• 5.4 Attitude Markers 75
• 5.4.1 Overall Distribution of Attitude Markers 75
• 5.4.2 Characteristics of Attitude Markers 75
• 5.5 Self-Mentions 76
• 5.5.1 Overall Distribution of Self-Mentions 77
• 5.5.2 Characteristics of Self-Mentions 78
• 5.6 Engagement Markers 79
• 5.6.1 Overall Distribution of Engagement Markers 79
• 5.6.2 Characteristics of Engagement Markers 80
• 5.7 Comparison of Interactional Metadiscourse among Disciplines in Academic Spoken English 82
• 5.7.1 Similarities 85
• 5.7.2 Differences 86
• 5.8 Comparison Between Spoken and Written Academic English in Interactional Dimension 87
• Chapter 6 90
• THE MULTIFUNCTIONALITY OF METADISCOURSE IN ACADEMIC SPOKEN ENGLISH 90
• 6.1 Introduction 90
• 6.2 The Interactive Functions of Metadiscourse 91
• 6.2.1 Signaling Transition from a Thesis Statement to a Supporting Evidence 91
• 6.2.2 Shifting Function from Knowledge Transmission to Directives 93
• 6.2.3 Shifting Function from Reporting Truths to Tentative Assertion or Vice Versa 94
• 6.2.4 Shifting Function from Questioning to Expounding 95
• 6.3 The Interactional Functions of Metadiscourse 97
• 6.3.1 Achieving Cooperative Communication and Interaction 97
• 6.3.2 Establishing Politeness and Face-Saving Atmosphere 99
• 6.3.3 Facilitating Comprehensible Input, Motivating Notice and Promoting Interaction 100
• 6.4 Summary 101
• Chapter 7 102
• CONCLUSION 102
• 7.1 Major Findings 102
• 7.2 Implications of the Study 104
• 7.3 Limitations 105
• REFERENCES 106
• APPENDIX 112
• Abstract (English) 114
• Abstract (Korean) 116