학술대회 토론문에 나타난 공손전략의 양상 및 유형 분석
An Analysis of the Patterns and Types of Politeness Strategies in Conference Discussion Papers
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In this study, 90 discussion papers from academic conferences related toKorean humanities and Korean language education were analyzed, referring to theframework of politeness strategies used in Hyland (2000)'s review of criticism. Theanalysis focused on the patterns and types of politeness strategies used in criticism inthe discussion papers. The research results can be summarized into four main points. First, criticism appeared 465 times in 90 discussion papers, which means it occurred in27.9% of all sentences. Second, 16.8% of criticisms were made without the use ofpoliteness strategies, while 83.2% involved the use of politeness strategies whencriticizing. Third, politeness strategies used in the discussion papers were classified intoeight categories, including 'praise-criticism', 'hedging', 'personal attribution', 'requestingopinions/thoughts of others', 'self-denigration', 'expressing respect', 'asking forunderstanding' and 'recasting problems as potential for future research'. Fourth, it wasfound that the politeness strategies used in the discussion papers of Korean academicconferences, particularly when critiquing, have similarities and differences whencompared to the politeness strategies used in reviews or academic writing in otherlanguages such as English, Italian, and Japanese. These findings suggest that linguisticand cultural backgrounds may influence the degree and manner in which criticism isaccepted and expressed.
Abstract
In this study, 90 discussion papers from academic conferences related toKorean humanities and Korean language education were analyzed, referring to theframework of politeness strategies used in Hyland (2000)'s review of criticism. Theanalysis focused on the patterns and types of politeness strategies used in criticism inthe discussion papers. The research results can be summarized into four main points. First, criticism appeared 465 times in 90 discussion papers, which means it occurred in27.9% of all sentences. Second, 16.8% of criticisms were made without the use ofpoliteness strategies, while 83.2% involved the use of politeness strategies whencriticizing. Third, politeness strategies used in the discussion papers were classified intoeight categories, including 'praise-criticism', 'hedging', 'personal attribution', 'requestingopinions/thoughts of others', 'self-denigration', 'expressing respect', 'asking forunderstanding' and 'recasting problems as potential for future research'. Fourth, it wasfound that the politeness strategies used in the discussion papers of Korean academicconferences, particularly when critiquing, have similarities and differences whencompared to the politeness strategies used in reviews or academic writing in otherlanguages such as English, Italian, and Japanese. These findings suggest that linguisticand cultural backgrounds may influence the degree and manner in which criticism isaccepted and expressed.
참고문헌 (22)
- 신명선, "국어 학술텍스트에 드러난 헤지(Hedge)표현에 대한 연구", 배달말, 38, pp.151~180 (2006)
- 신영주, "한국어 화자와 중국인 한국어 학습자의 학위 논문 서론의 완화 표지 사용 양상 비교", 담화와인지, 18(1), pp.63~77 (2011)
- 이동은, "학문 목적 한국어 학습자의 발표 후 질의에 대한 분석 연구-화용적측면을 중심으로", 어문논집, 71, pp.377~398 (2014)
- 이준호, "학술 텍스트에 나타난 한국어 헤지 표현 선정 연구", 이중언어학, 49, pp.269~297 (2012)
- 이혜용, "평가화행의 적정 조건과 화행 분류 체계 내에서의 지위", 한국어 의미학, 40, pp.495~520 (2013)
- 홍윤혜, "학술적 문어담화와 구어담화의 장르 비교 분석: 연구 논문과 연구 발표의 수사적 행위 요소를 중심으로", 박사, pp.2014
- 오명기, "Cross-cultural differences in compliment behavior between Koreans and Americans", 현대문법연구, 43, pp.155~175 (2006)
- Brown, Penelope, "Politeness: Some universals in language usage" (1987), Cambridge University Press
- Diani, Giuliana, "Criticism and politeness strategies in academic review discourse : a contrastive(English-Italian)corpus-based analysis", Kalbotyra, 70, pp.60~78 (2017)[DOI]
- Duszak, Anna, "Cross-cultural academic communication : A discourse-community view", Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, 104, pp.11~40 (1997)[DOI]
- Goffman, Erving, "Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior" (1967), Doubleday
- Hyland, Ken, "The author in the text : Hedging scientific writing", Hongkong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, pp.33~42 (1995)
- Hyland, Ken, "Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts", Language Awareness, 9(4), pp.179~197 (2000)[DOI]
- Hyland, Ken, "Academic discourse: English in a global context" (2009), Continuum
- Itakura, Hiroko, "Language in life, and a life in language", pp.193~202 (2009)
- Johnson, Donna M, "Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews : Gender variation", Language in Society, 21(1), pp.27~57 (1992)[DOI]
- Johnson, Ralph E, "Documenting frameworks using patterns", OOPSLA '92: Conference proceedings on object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications, pp.63~76 (1992)
- Larina, Tatiana, "I wanted to honour your journal, and you spat in my face : Emotive(im)politeness and face in the English and Russian blind peer review", Journal of Politeness Research, 18(1), pp.201~226 (2022)[DOI]
- Miššíková, Gabriela, "Politeness strategies in academic digital discourse", Discourse and Interaction, 5(1), pp.49~62 (2012)[DOI]
- Swales, John M, "Genre analysis" (1990), Cambridge University Press
- Swales, John M, "Research genres: Explorations and applications" (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Yu, Mingchung, "Interlinguistic variation and similarity in second language speech act behavior", The Modern Language Journal, 88, pp.102~119 (2004)[DOI]