본 연구는 한국어 종속접속절이 전통적으로 부사절 범주에 포함될 수 있는지에 관한 판정 기준의 모호성과 한계를 검토하고, 한·중·영 대조 분 석을 통해 보다 명확한 기준을 제시하고자 한다. 연구 방법으로는 첫째, 기존 문법 연구에서 제시된 ‘대등성’, ‘이동 현상’, ‘내포성’ 등 주요 판정 기준을 체계적으로 정리하고 문제점을 도출하였다. 둘째, 한국어 ‘-아/어 서’ 절, 영어 ‘because-’절, 중국어 ‘因为-’절을 대조하며 ‘부정문을 통 한 긴밀성 검증법’을 적용하여 각 절이 주절 내부 요소로 기능하는지를 실증적으로 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 기존 기준들에서는 용어의 불명확성, 주관적 판단, 의미 범위의 일관성 결여 등이 발견되었다. 특히 한국어 ‘- 아/어서’ 절은 부정문의 부정어가 절 전체를 관할하지 못해 [[NEG+ VP]+XP] 구조로 해석되므로, 종속절이 주절의 일부로 결속되지 않음을 확인하였다. 이로써 부사절과 종속절을 구별하는 공식화된 검증 방식을 제안하였으며, 한국어 문법 교육 및 교재 개발 시 혼동을 줄이고 학습자 의 이해도를 높이는 데 기여할 수 있다.

In modern Chinese, nouns act as adverbials, which are very special grammatical phenomena. Nouns as adverbials refer to the question of whether or not the adverbials mark "de(地)". By means of syntactic and semantic analysis, common nouns of table time, place and position are used as adverbials without markedness. By the constraints of context, weaker means the meaning of reference expression tools and compares. The common names of people, animals and objects, This is the ancient Chinese syntax structure of the results of the grammaticalization. In modern Chinese, abstract nouns act as adverbials, which are related to the "subjectivity" of linguistic typology. These abstract nouns carry the semantical case of mark "de(地)" to express subjective meaning. In particular, it was manner adverbial that the common nouns are expressed in the form of juxtaposition, and the quantity structure is expressed by the reduplication structures. Nominal component modified action behavior whether there is mark divisded into two kind of meanings in the semantic for the objective and subjective sense. Objective meaning refers to the speaker has nothing to do and Subjective meaning refers to the speaker's subjective beliefs and attitudes associated with the significance. The reduplication structure and the noun juxtaposition structure express the subjective meaning, while the preposition structure does not have the subjective and objective points. It only expresses the semantic meaning of the prepositive markings which have been completely grammaticalization.

Vocabulary expansion is essential for learners to gain proficiency in L2, but learners’ lexical knowledge has not drawn much research attention in SLA (Howarth, 1996). In an attempt to throw light on a neglected aspect of learners’ competence, this paper investigates the use of a lexical item in the writing corpora. In particular, it compares the frequency and distribution of intensifiers in the EFL corpus with those in a native English corpus. The result of the frequency analysis in the EFL corpus offers an evidence of significant overuse of the limited types of maximizers and boosters, which in turn result in the inflated frequency of intensifiers. Further, the present study uses the mutual information score to measure the strength of the bond between selected intensifiers and adjacent lexical items. The result does not clearly demonstrate associations between the intensifier and the adjacent words due to the small corpus size, but it provides some possible pedagogical implications for L2 teaching. The frequency information rather than the information on the strength of associations between intensifiers and adjacent words, for example, would be more helpful to EFL learners.

This paper aims to explore the problematic nature of the use of adverbial connectors employed in NNS and NS academic essays by using two different corpora from Korean university students and from English native speakers in the UK. Combining corpus-based and discourse analytic approaches, the study focuses on the frequency and distributions of adverbial connectors, thus investigating in what ways this can affect the rhetorical features in terms of the text cohesion and structure. The results indicate that the Korean sample students shared the problem of other L2 writers with the overuse of overall connectors, but they showed a strong preference for using colloquial and spoken forms of adverbial connectors. On semantic relations, the overuse problem occurred in the listing, in particular, reinforcing types of the adverbial connectors. The noteworthy difference is that the mechanical repetitions of listing and contrasting ideas, and connecting them in a cause-effect sequence was identified more frequently in the Korean student texts than in the native student ones. However, counter-argument is more preferred in the argumentative context of the native student texts with more overt use of contrastive connecting items. Finally, most of the misused connectors were identified to simply repeat the ideas in the same viewpoint, which may have led to a failure in developing logical sequences in argumentative discourse. Another misuse type of connectors may derive from sociopragmatic transfer from L1 to L2. The findings thus may give some pedagogical implications for teaching alternative strategies to raise culture-specific register awareness and understand the different semantic types of adverbial connectors.