RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      현대러시아어의 대조화제와 '화제성' = Contrastive Topic in Modern Russian : A Case for 'Topichood'

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A75058109

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      This study explores the concept of 'contrastive topicl CT)' in Modern Russian, their linguistic exponents and implications. In view of the fact that every focus element has a certain degree of innate contrastiveness, CT is a heterogeneous concept including focus properties arising from its contrastive semantic feature, as is contrastive focus with its topic properties in terms of informational status as 'given'. CT is a complex notion: it evokes a set of contrast sets consisting of textually or situationally evoked alternatives and it needs to orient or anchor the addressee, which explains its invariant prominent position in Russian word order. Further, topic-focus bipartition, a long tradition in FSP studies, needs to be reexamined.
      In Russian, other than prosodic features, word order is a main exponent of CT : CT tends to be located in sentence-initial position. CT precedes a continuous topic, and this CT -first ordering is crucial for orienting the addressee in evoking double contrast sets. In colloquial Russian, although CT invariably occupies the same sentence-initial position, contrastive focus or unmarked focus tends to be preposed - to sentence-initial position or leftward. In addition, this study reexamines "imenitel'nyj temy", which has caused confusion due to its misnomer, and this neutralized unmarked case in topic position is for both topic and focus with assumed contrastiveness in colloquial Russian. Thus, regardless of register, 'focushood' or contrastiveness controls sentence-initial position and case neutralization. The position and case reflect its cognitive and discourse function as 'figure' or foregrounding device. Thus Communicative Dynamism alone cannot explicate the communicative significance of the sentence-initial position or leftward movement. In conclusion this study rejects discrete categorial notions of topic and focus based on structural binarism. Instead a continuous notion of 'topichood', consisting of properties on grammatical, semantic, discourse-pragmatic and coding planes, is proposed. CT is a case for that argument.
      번역하기

      This study explores the concept of 'contrastive topicl CT)' in Modern Russian, their linguistic exponents and implications. In view of the fact that every focus element has a certain degree of innate contrastiveness, CT is a heterogeneous concept incl...

      This study explores the concept of 'contrastive topicl CT)' in Modern Russian, their linguistic exponents and implications. In view of the fact that every focus element has a certain degree of innate contrastiveness, CT is a heterogeneous concept including focus properties arising from its contrastive semantic feature, as is contrastive focus with its topic properties in terms of informational status as 'given'. CT is a complex notion: it evokes a set of contrast sets consisting of textually or situationally evoked alternatives and it needs to orient or anchor the addressee, which explains its invariant prominent position in Russian word order. Further, topic-focus bipartition, a long tradition in FSP studies, needs to be reexamined.
      In Russian, other than prosodic features, word order is a main exponent of CT : CT tends to be located in sentence-initial position. CT precedes a continuous topic, and this CT -first ordering is crucial for orienting the addressee in evoking double contrast sets. In colloquial Russian, although CT invariably occupies the same sentence-initial position, contrastive focus or unmarked focus tends to be preposed - to sentence-initial position or leftward. In addition, this study reexamines "imenitel'nyj temy", which has caused confusion due to its misnomer, and this neutralized unmarked case in topic position is for both topic and focus with assumed contrastiveness in colloquial Russian. Thus, regardless of register, 'focushood' or contrastiveness controls sentence-initial position and case neutralization. The position and case reflect its cognitive and discourse function as 'figure' or foregrounding device. Thus Communicative Dynamism alone cannot explicate the communicative significance of the sentence-initial position or leftward movement. In conclusion this study rejects discrete categorial notions of topic and focus based on structural binarism. Instead a continuous notion of 'topichood', consisting of properties on grammatical, semantic, discourse-pragmatic and coding planes, is proposed. CT is a case for that argument.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 ""Word Order in Spoken Discourse,"" 2005

      2 Keenan, ""Towards a Universal Definition of "Subject","" 1976

      3 Prince, E. F, ""Towards a Taxonomy of Given-New Information,"" 1981

      4 Vallduv, Enric, ""The Linguistic Realization of Information Packaging," Linguistics" 34 : 459-519, 1996

      5 Kuroda, S.-Y, ""The Categorical and Thetic Judgement: Evidence from Japanese Syntax,"" 1972

      6 MacWhinney, ""Starting Points,"" 1977

      7 Rosch, Elinor, ""Principles of Categorization," Cognition and Categorization" 1978

      8 Vallduv, Enric, ""On Rheme and Contrast," Syntax and Semantics" Academic Press 29 : 79-108, 1998

      9 Firbas, Jan, ""On Defining Theme and Functional Sentence Analysis. Travaux,"" 1966

      10 Halliday, M. A. K, ""Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part2,"" 1976

      1 ""Word Order in Spoken Discourse,"" 2005

      2 Keenan, ""Towards a Universal Definition of "Subject","" 1976

      3 Prince, E. F, ""Towards a Taxonomy of Given-New Information,"" 1981

      4 Vallduv, Enric, ""The Linguistic Realization of Information Packaging," Linguistics" 34 : 459-519, 1996

      5 Kuroda, S.-Y, ""The Categorical and Thetic Judgement: Evidence from Japanese Syntax,"" 1972

      6 MacWhinney, ""Starting Points,"" 1977

      7 Rosch, Elinor, ""Principles of Categorization," Cognition and Categorization" 1978

      8 Vallduv, Enric, ""On Rheme and Contrast," Syntax and Semantics" Academic Press 29 : 79-108, 1998

      9 Firbas, Jan, ""On Defining Theme and Functional Sentence Analysis. Travaux,"" 1966

      10 Halliday, M. A. K, ""Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part2,"" 1976

      11 Lee, Chungmin, ""Generic Sentences are Topic Constructions," Reference and Referent Accessibility. Thorstein Fretheim & Jeanette Gundel(eds.)" Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company 1996

      12 Kuno, S, ""Functional Sentence Perspective,"" 1972

      13 Rooth, ""Focus," The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Shalom Lappin(ed.)" 1996

      14 Kresin, ""Deixis and Thematic Hierarchies in Russian Narrative Discourse,"" 30 : 421-435, 1998

      15 Turner, ""Contrastive Topic: A Locus of the Interface," The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View 1. K. Turner(ed.)" London: Elsevier 317-341, 1999

      16 Bolinger, ""Contrastive Accent and Contrastive Stress,"" 1961

      17 McCoy, ""Connecting Information Structure and Discourse through "Kontrast": The Case of Colloquial Russian Particles -TO, E, and VED',"" 12 : 319-335, 2003

      18 Gundel, ""Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse,"" 1993

      19 "현대러시아어의 양상소사 ведь와 же: 그 메타포적 다의성과 의미적 불변체" 14 (14): 239-278, 2004

      20 송은지, "현대러시아어에서의 접속사 а와 но: 그 의미적, 화용적 기능의 변별성" 11 (11): 97-127, 2001

      21 임홍빈, "한국어의 어순과 어순주제" 2007

      22 Ковтунова, И. И, "Современный русский язык: порядок слов и актуальное членение предложения" 1976

      23 Лаптева, О. А, "Русский разговорный синтаксис." Москва: Наука 2003

      24 Янко, Т. Е, "Коммуникативный стратегии русской речи" 2001

      25 Grimes, "The Thread of Discourse" 1975

      26 Lakoff, George, "Metaphors We Live by" 1980

      27 Lambrecht, Knud, "Information Structure and Sentence Form" 1994

      28 Chafe, "Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of View, Subject and Topic" 1976

      29 Yokoyama, Olga T, "Discourse and Word Order" 1986

      30 Song, Eun-Ji, "Discourse and Style in Old Believer Lives: Referential Strategies and Topic Marking in the Lives of Morozova, Epifanij, and Bojarynja Morozova" 1997

      31 Brown, Gillian, "Discourse Analysis" 1983

      32 Carlson, L, "Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis" 1983

      33 Chvany, "Deconstructing Agents and Subjects, Selected Essays of Catherine V. Chvany. Olga Yokoyama & Emily Klenin(eds.)" Ohio: Slavica 1997

      34 Jakobson, "Contribution to the General Theory of Case: General Meanings of the Russian Cases, Russian and Slavic Grammar" 1984

      35 King, "Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian" Stanford: CSLI Publications 1995

      36 Timberlake, Alan, "A Reference Grammar of Russian" Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 2004

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2026 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2020-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2017-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2013-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2008-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2006-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2003-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2002-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2000-07-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.64 0.64 0.47
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.39 0.36 0.737 0.26
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼