• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.297-325
• /
• 2017

In this paper, I would like to reconsider the evidential category (or the mediation category) in languages with language specific values, especially in Korean and French evidentials. We tried to analyze how the evidentials are represented in both languages including their linguistic markers (grammatical, lexical or discursive) and their semantic meanings. According to the precedent studies from the general linguistic point of view, we would like to reconsider the semantic meanings of both languages' grammatical markers, the so-called Korean retrospective marker '-te-' and French conditionals in the framework of the enunciative operation theory suggested by $Descl{\acute{e}}s$ & $Guentch{\acute{e}}va$ (2000), which proposed to classify the type of discourse by the language-independent description tools conceived after the enunciation theory suggested by Bally (1965), Benveniste (1956), Culioli (1973). Through this approach, we would like to contribute to establishing the linguistic basis not only for the general linguistic research to determine the invariant meaning of linguistic evidentials and their system, but also for the applied linguistics to the language engineering field.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.69-85
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to explore teachers' responsive moves that affect students' argumentation practices, and to propose responsive teaching strategies in argumentation-based science classroom. Two teachers, who have not implemented argumentation in their classes, and 57 students, participated in this study. We recorded and transcribed their classes and interviews for the analysis. According to grounded theory approach, we categorized the teachers' responsive moves as focused on either structural or dialogical aspects of argumentation, and qualitatively analyzed their responsive teaching practices in classes. We discovered that the teachers mostly responded to structural rather than dialogical aspects of argumentation, particularly during the students' small-group discussions. This was mainly due to their instructional goals, which focused on the structural aspect of argumentation, and the limited time available for supporting small-groups. Regarding the structural aspects, those responsive moves that explored the students' thinking or facilitated their reasoning helped them to share their thinking and justify their arguments further with recognition of learning goals in the argumentation activities. Regarding the dialogical aspects, which were seen mostly in whole-class discussions, the moves that underlined similarities and differences between arguments, facilitated the sharing of a small-group's arguments with the entire class, or asked a specific student to evaluate the arguments were notable. These moves supported clarification of various small-groups' arguments, which led to reconstruction of coherent argument through evaluation and rebuttal of these arguments, consequentially facilitating dialogical interactions. Based on these results, we proposed responsive teaching strategies in an argumentation-based science classroom.