디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제19권7호
  • /
  • Pages.33-39
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

키워드 분석에 대한 최신 접근법 비교 연구: 성경 코퍼스를 중심으로

A Comparative Study of a New Approach to Keyword Analysis: Focusing on NBC

  • 하명호 (신라대학교 교양과정대학)
  • Ha, Myoungho (College of General Education, Silla University)
  • 투고 : 2021.04.26
  • 심사 : 2021.07.20
  • 발행 : 2021.07.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 구약 성경 코퍼스와 신약 성경 코퍼스, 그리고 구약과 신약 성경을 통합한 코퍼스에서 추출된 키워드 목록의 어휘적 특징을 분석하고, 또 사용빈도 기반의 키워드 분석보다 분포도 기반 키워드 분석이 더 우수한 분석 방식임을 밝히고자 하였다. 이를 위해 Bible Hub의 NLT 웹사이트에서 성경 파일을 다운받아 약 57만 어절의 구약 성경 코퍼스와 약 20만 어절의 신약 성경 코퍼스를 구축하였다. 목표 코퍼스와 참조 코퍼스의 비교를 통한 키워드 목록을 추출하기 위해서 Scott(2020)의 WordSmith 8.0 프로그램을 사용하였다. 그 결과, 분포도 기반 키워드 분석이 사용빈도 기반의 키워드 분석보다 키워드 목록의 어휘적 특징을 보다 더 잘 나타낼 수 있었고, 또 코퍼스 내용의 대표성과 변별성을 충분히 충족시킬 수 있는 최적의 키워드 목록을 추출하기 위해서는 분포도 기반 키워드 분석이 더 우수한 방식임을 밝혔다.

This paper aims to analyze lexical properties of keyword lists extracted from NLT Old Testament Corpus(NOTC), NLT New Testament Corpus(NNTC), and The NLT Bible Corpus(NBC) and identify that text dispersion keyness is more effective than corpus frequency keyness. For this purpose, NOTC including around 570,000 running words and NNTC about 200,000 were compiled after downloading the files from NLT website of Bible Hub. Scott's (2020) WordSmith 8.0 was utilized to extract keyword lists through comparing a target corpus and a reference corpus. The result demonstrated that text dispersion keyness showed lexical properties of keyword lists better than corpus frequency keyness and that the former was a superior measure for generating optimal keyword lists to fully meet content-generalizability and content distinctiveness.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. K. S. Folse. (2004). Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  2. M. Lewis. (1993). The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
  3. M. Lewis. (2000). Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
  4. I. S. P. Nation. (1994). New Ways in Teaching Vocabulary. Alexandria, Va: TESOL.
  5. R. Waring & P. Nation. (2004). Second Language Reading and Incidental Vocabulary Learning. Angles on the English Speaking World, 4, 97-110.
  6. A. Zareva, P. Schwanenflugel & Y. Nikolova. (2005). Relationship between Lexical Competence and Language Proficiency: Variable Sensitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(4), 567-595. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050254
  7. I. S. P. Nation. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
  8. P. Baker. (2004). Querying keywords: questions of difference, frequency and sense in keywords analysis. Journal of English linguistics, 2(4), 346-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424204269894
  9. J. Egbert & D. Biber. (2019). Incorporating text dispersion into keyword analyses. Corpora, 14(1), 77-104. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2019.0162
  10. S. T. Gries. (2021). A new approach to (key) keywords analysis: using frequency, and now also dispersion. Research in Corpus Linguistics, 9(2), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.09.02.02
  11. M. Bondi & M. Scott. (2010). Keyness in texts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  12. L. Grabowsky. (2015). Keywords and Lexical Bundles within English Pharmaceutical Discourse: A Corpus-driven Description. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 28-33.
  13. S. E. Jhang & S. M. Lee. (2013). Visualization of Collocational Networks: Maritime English Keywords. Language Research, 49(3), 781-802.
  14. M. Scott & C. Tribble. (2006). Textual Patterns: Keyword and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  15. M. Y. Yoo. (2019). A Study on the Meaning and Collocation for Make Used in NIV English Bible. The Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 21, 10(3), 633-644. https://doi.org/10.22143/hss21.10.3.45
  16. M. Scott. (2020). WordSmith Tools Version 8.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
  17. T. Dunning. (1993). Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61-74.
  18. S. E. Jhang & S. M. Lee. (2012). Key clusters analyses of lexical bundles used in English for academic purposes: The Biomed Corpus. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 20(4), 219-239.
  19. P. Baker. (2010). Corpus methods in linguistics in L. Litosseliti (ed.) Research Methods in Linguistics, PP. 95-113. New York: Continuum.
  20. J. Culpeper. (2009). Keyness: Words, Parts-of-speech and Semantic Categories in the Character-talk of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(1), 29-59. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.1.03cul
  21. M. Scott. (2016). WordSmith Tools Manual. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.