『Must』와 『Have (got) to』 의 의미론적 분석
A Semantic Analysis of 『Must』 and 『Have (got) to』
- 발행기관 강릉대학교 교육대학원
- 지도교수 박노민
- 발행년도 2008
- 학위수여년월 2008. 2
- 학위명 석사
- 학과 및 전공 영어교육전공
- 원문페이지 57 p.
- 본문언어 한국어
초록/요약
Wilkins(1976) argued that the objective of foreign-language education is acquiring communicative competency one by one, and stated that a good understanding of modality is instrumental to that. Modality refers to the mental attitude of different speakers toward a particular proposition or incident, and that is eventually complex and subtle. So it is not an easy task to get an accurate grasp of modality especially in EFL situations like ours. The purpose of this study is to delve into the difference in meaning between two auxiliary verbs 『must』 and 『have (got) to』 in an effort to lend assistance to modality learning. There is not yet a clear definition of the usage of 『must』 and 『have (got) to』. To build the theoretical foundation for the study, the grammar of the two auxiliary verbs was investigated, and the differences between them and general verbs were described, and the definition of morality was presented. Different researchers' view of the semantic differences between the two auxiliary verbs was checked, and then what semantic differences there were between the two in the four different usages of modality that were classified by semantics and included deontic, dynamic, epistemic and affective modality was examined. Finally, a survey was conducted to see if there were any gaps between the theoretical and practical usages of the two auxiliary verbs and which theory was closer to the actual usage of it. The findings of the study were as follows: First, in the event of deontic modality, 『must』 was more appropriate when the speaker found it necessary for himself or herself to do something from his or her own subjective perspective, and the use of 『have (got) to』 was more advisable if the speaker was forced to do something from an objective standpoint. In case a second-person subject was used, however, it was not easy to determine whether the speaker decided based on his or her own subjective view or under the influence of another person who took an objective attitude. Second, in terms of dynamic modality, 『have to』 was more frequently used than 『must』 if one was required to do something by the outside, whether the outside referred to any particular person or not. That ran counter to theories of different researchers, and it was ascertained that contrary to the theories, there was not a clear distinction between deontic morality and dynamic modality in practice. Third, in the event of epistemic modality, the frequency of 『must』 was far larger than that of 『have to』. In theory, 『have to』 could be used in terms of epistemic modality, but it's not the case in practice. Finally, it was confirmed that 『have got to』 was a colloquial phrase that was used in informal contexts in accordance with the theories. But 『have to』 was a colloquial phrase as well, and there was not consequently a broad difference between the two. It was ascertained that not every theory complied with the practical usage of the auxiliary verbs. However, one obvious fact was that 『must』 and 『have (got) to』 had a unique meaning of their own respectively, and that the two auxiliary verbs could not be interchangeable. Given the characteristics of modality, a lack of distinction between the basic meanings of the two might lead to improper communication. In order to speak English fluently the auxiliary verbs should be used in the right context and situation.
more목차
Ⅰ. 서 론 = 1
1.1. 연구의 목적 = 1
Ⅱ. 본 론 = 5
2. 이론적 배경 = 5
2,1.양태동사와 조동사 = 5
2.2. 조동사와 그 우회적인 조동사 = 9
2.3. 서법성(modality = 11
3. Must 와 Have to 에 대한 비교 = 14
3.1. 학자들에 따른 주장 = 14
3.1.1. Must와 have to에 의미차이가 있다는 주장 = 14
3.1.2. Must와 have to에 의미차이가 없다는 주장 = 17
3.2. 의미상의 차이점 = 21
3.2.1. 의무적 서법성(Deontic modality = 21
3.2.2. 동적 서법성(Dynamic modality = 27
3.2.2.1. 외부적인 동적 서법성(External dynamic modality = 28
3.2.2.2. 중립적인 동적 서법성(Neutral dynamic modality = 30
3.2.3. 인식적 서법성 (Epistemic modality) = 31
3.2.4. 감정적 서법성 (Affective modality = 34
4. Must 와 have (got) to의 용법차이를 알아보기 위한 실험 = 36
4.1. 실험의 목적 및 방법 = 36
4.2 실험의 결과 = 40
4.3. 실험의 결론 = 47
Ⅲ. 결론 및 제언 = 49
참고문헌 = 52
실험에 이용한 설문지 = 55
