본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

대통령의 언어적 상징 전략에 대한 연구: 역대 김영삼, 김대중, 노무현, 이명박 대통령의 공식 연설문 분석을 중심으로

How the Presidents In South Korea Strategically Use Linguistic Symbols for Institutional Legitimacy during Incumbency in Response to Crisis and Opportunities?

권향원|최도림
정부학연구소 (Institute of Governmental Studies)|2013.12|정부학연구 (Journal of Governmental Studies(JGS))|제19권 제3호|pp. 285-320

0

조회

0

다운로드

31

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

Qualitative Method대통령의 언어적 상징전략질적방법제도적 정당성Symbolic management by presidencyInstitutional Legitimacy
주제분류행정학

초록

본 연구는 대통령이 재임기간 중 경험하는 위기-기회 등의 과업환경 변동에 어떻게 언어적 상징을 통해 대응하는지를 이해하기 위하여 연례 대국민 공식연설문인 3.1절 기념사와 8･15 경축사를 대상으로 질적 주제분석(thematic analysis)과 양적 내용분석(contents analysis)을 수행하였다. 분석결과 대통령은 자신을 둘러싼 제도적 환경으로써국민의 사회적 기대와 요구에 효과적으로 대응하고, 계속된 정책지지를 확보하기 위하여, 행위의 정당성(legitimacy)을 어필하기 위한 언어적 상징전략을 의식적으로 구사하고있음을 발견하였다. 제도론적 시각에서 소위 제도적 어휘(institutional vocabularies)라고부를 수 있는 이러한 정당성의 상징들은 임기 중 경험하는 위기-기회 등 과업환경 변화에 대응하여 ‘자찬’, ‘타찬’, ‘인정’, 그리고 ‘전가’의 유형으로 나타나고 있었으며, 상징의사용비율은 일반적으로 지지율의 변동과 부(-)의 상관관계의 추세를 보여주었다. 본 연구의 의의는 기존 대통령권력 이론이 대통령의 주요한 권력수단의 하나로 주제화하였던언어적 상징전략이 사회적 정당성 취득을 위한 수단으로 어떻게 활용되고 있는지에 대한 한 가지 이해방식과 설명을 질적-분석적 방법론을 통해 경험적으로 제시하였다는 점에서 찾을 수 있다.

Abstract

This study investigates how the presidents in South Korea strategicallyutilized linguistic symbols in response to crisis or opportunities which tookplace during their incumbency. Drawing on official texts of speeches astextual data for analysis, we conducted thematic analysis and contentsanalysis consecutively to empirically categorize the types and measurefrequencies of the symbols that were used to convey images of legitimacyto the public. As a result, we found that there are four representative typesof symbols such as self-praising, other-praising, acceptance, and imposing,and the frequencies of their use are correlated with the change of approvalrating. Although linguistic symbols have been regarded as one of thesignificant tools that might be used by the president to manage the public,empirical evidence was few. Thus, this study seeks to generate attention tosymbolic aspect of presidency in public administration context.

참고문헌 (102)

  1. 김인숙, "원자력에 대한 위험인식과 지각된 지식, 커뮤니케이션 채널의 이용, 제 3자 효과가 낙관적 편견에 미치는 영향 ― 일본 후쿠시마 원전사고를 중심으로", 언론과학연구, 12(3), pp.79~106 (2012), 한국지역언론학회
  2. 심준섭, "원자력 발전소에 대한 신뢰, 인식된 위험과 혜택, 그리고 수용성", 한국정책학회보, 18(4), pp.93~132 (2009), 한국정책학회
  3. 왕재선, "후쿠시마 원전사고 이후 원자력 수용성 및 인식구조 변화에 대한 탐색적 분석", 한국행정학보, 47(2), pp.395~424 (2013), 한국행정학회
  4. 이건, "우리나라 국민들의 원자력발전 수용성에 미치는 영향 요인 분석", 한국정책학회 춘계학술대회 논문집, pp.535~555 (2011)
  5. 이나경, "방폐장 입지에 관한 의사결정에 영향을 미치는 변수", 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 17(4), pp.461~475 (2005), 한국인지및생물심리학회
  6. 이영애, "신뢰 및 세계관이 위험지각에 미치는 영향", 2005 PMORP Workshop: 위험지각의 심리적 메카니즘, pp.13~26 (2005)
  7. 정주용, "후쿠시마 원전사고 이후 대국민 원자력 수용성 변화", 한국정책학회 추계학술대회 발표논문집, pp.157~177 (2011)
  8. 조성경, "원자력시설 및 정책의 수용성에 영향을 미치는 인식인자 도출에 관한 이론적 고찰", 에너지공학, 11(4), pp.332~341 (2002), 한국에너지공학회
  9. 차용진, "위험인식 연구: 심리측정패러다임의 신뢰성 및 타당성 검토", 한국정책과학학회보, 10(4), pp.181~201 (2006), 한국정책과학학회
  10. 차용진, "위험인식과 위험분석의 정책적 함의: 수도권 일반주민을 중심으로", 한국정책학회보, 16(1), pp.97~116 (2007), 한국정책학회
  11. Adams, J, "Risk" (1995), UCL Press
  12. Alhakami, A. S., "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefits", Risk Analysis, 14(6), pp.1085~1096 (1994)
  13. Bassett Jr., "On-Site Storage of High Level Nuclear Waste : Attitude and Perceptions of Local Residents", Risk Analysis, 16(3), pp.309~319 (1996)
  14. Biel, A., "Risk Perception and the Location of a Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel", Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 36(1), pp.25~36 (1995)
  15. Bird, Deanne K., "Nuclear Power in Australia: A Comparative Analysis of Public Opinion Regarding Climate Change and the Fukushima Disaste" (2013), Energy Policy. In Press
  16. Boholm, Å, "Comparative Studies of Risk Perception : A Review of Twenty Years of Research", Journal of Risk Research, 1(2), pp.135~163 (1998)
  17. Bord, R. J., "Risk Communication, Knowledge, and Attitudes : Explaining Reactions to a Technology Perceived as Risky", Risk Analysis, 10(4), pp.499~506 (1990)
  18. Bord, R. J., "Determinants of Risk Perceptions of a Hazardous Waste Site", Risk Analysis, 12(3), pp.411~416 (1992)
  19. Brenot, J., "Testing the Cultural Theory of Risk in France", Risk Analysis, 18(6), pp.729~739 (1998)
  20. Brody, C. J, "Differences by Sex in Support for Nuclear Power", Social Forces, 63(1), pp.209~228 (1984)
  21. Buss, D. M., "Contemporary Worldviews : Personal and Policy Implications", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(3), pp.259~280 (1983)
  22. Cha, Y. J, "Risk Perception in Korea : A Comparison with Japan and the United States", Journal of Risk Research, 3(4), pp.321~332 (2000)
  23. YONG-JINCHA, "AN ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR RISK PERCEPTION:WITH FOCUS ON DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE POLICY ALTERNATIVES", International Review of Public Administration, 8(2), pp.33~47 (2003), 한국행정학회
  24. Chung, J. B., "Competition, economic benefits, trust, and risk perception in siting a potentially hazardous facility", Landscape And Urban Planning, 91(1), pp.8~16 (2009), ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
  25. Coast, E, "Local Understandings of, and Responses to, HIV : Rural-Urban Migrants in Tanzania", Social Science and Medicine, 63(4), pp.1000~1010 (2006)
  26. Combs, B., "Newspaper Coverage of Causes of Death", Journalism Quarterly, 56(4), pp.837~849 (1979)
  27. Covello, V. T., "Communicating Scientific Information about Health and Environmental Risks : Problems and Opportunities from a Social and Behavioral Perspective, In Uncertainty in Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Decision Making" (1987), Plenum Press
  28. Dake, K, "Orienting Dispositions in the Perception of Risk : An Analysis of Contemporary Worldviews and Cultural Biases", Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), pp.61~82 (1991)
  29. Davidson, D. J., "Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns : A Review and Analysis of Available Research", Environment and Behavior, 28(3), pp.302~339 (1996)
  30. Douglas, M., "Risk and Culture" (1982), University of California Press
  31. Douglas, M, "Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences" (1986), Russell Sage Foundation
  32. Drottz-Sjöberg, B. M., "Risk Perception and Worries after the Chernobyl Accident", Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10(2), pp.135~149 (1990)
  33. Earle, T. C., "Culture, Cosmopolitanism, and Risk Management", Risk Analysis, 17(1), pp.55~65 (1997)
  34. Figueroa, Pablo M, "Risk Communication Surrounding the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster : An Anthropological Approach", Asia Europe Journal, 11(1), pp.53~64 (2013)
  35. Finucane, M. L., "The Affect Heuristic in Judgement of Risks and Benefits", Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), pp.1~17 (2000)
  36. Finucane, M. L., "Judgement and Decision Making : The Dance of Affect and Reason, In Emerging Perspectives on Judgement and Decision Research" (2003), Cambridge University Press
  37. Fischhoff, B., "Lay Foibles and Expert Fables in Judgements about Risk", American Statistician, 36(2), pp.240~255 (1982)
  38. Fischhoff, B., "How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits", Policy Sciences, 9(2), pp.127~152 (1978)
  39. Flynn, J., "Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High-level Radioactive Waste Repository : Analysis of a Structural Model", Risk Analysis, 12(3), pp.417~429 (1992)
  40. Flynn, J., "Gender, Race and Environmental Health Risks", Risk Analysis, 14(4), pp.1101~1108 (1994)
  41. Fowlkes, M. R., "Chemicals and Community at Love Canal, In The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk: Essays on Risk Selection and Perception" (1987), D. Reidel
  42. Freudenburg, W. R, "Risk and Recreancy : Weber, the Division of Labors and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions", Social Forces, 71(4), pp.909~932 (1993)
  43. Frewer, L. J., "Understanding Public Attitudes to Technology", Journal of Risk Research, 1(3), pp.221~235 (1998)
  44. Frey, B. S., "The Old Lady Visits Your Backyard : A Tale of Morals and Markets", The Journal of Political Economy, 104(6), pp.1297~1313 (1996)
  45. Grasmück, D., "Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination by High-Exposed and Low-exposed Inhabitants : The Role of Knowledge and Emotional Concerns", Risk Analysis, 25(3), pp.611~622 (2005)
  46. Greenberg, M. R., "Gender Differences in Risk Perception : Effects Differ in Stressed vs. Nonstressed Environments", Risk Analysis, 15(4), pp.503~511 (1995)
  47. Groot, J. I. M., "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy", Risk Analysis, 33(2), pp.307~317 (2013)
  48. Groothuis, P. A., "The Role of Social Distrust in Risk-Benefit Analysis : A Study of the Siting of a hazardous Waste Disposal Facility", Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 15(3), pp.241~257 (1997)
  49. Hayashi, M., "The Fukushima Nuclear Accident and its Effect on Global Energy Security", Energy Policy, 59, pp.102~111 (2012)
  50. He, G., "Nuclear Power in China after Fukushima: Understanding Public Knowledge, Attitudes, and Trust", Journal of Risk Research, pp.1~17 (2012)
  51. Ho, J., "Risk Perception, Trust, and Factors Related to a Planned New Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan after the 2011 Fukushima Disaster", Journal of Radiological Protection, 33(4), pp.773~789 (2013)
  52. Ibitayo, O. O., "Reversing NIMBY : An assessment of State Strategies for Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities", Environment and Planning C, 17(4), pp.379~389 (1999)
  53. Jenkins-Smith, H., "Perceived Risk and Uncertainty of Nuclear Waste : Differences Among Science, Business, and Environmental Group Members", Risk Analysis, 14(5), pp.851~856 (1994)
  54. Jungermann, H., "Credibility, Information Preferences, and Information Interests", Risk Analysis, 16(2), pp.251~261 (1996)
  55. 김원준, "Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy", ENERGY POLICY, 61, pp.822~828 (2013), ELSEVIER SCI LTD
  56. Kunreuther, H, "Risk Analysis and Risk Management in an Uncertain World", Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting. Seattle, Washington (2001)
  57. Liu, S., "Information and Risk Perception : A Dynamic Adjustment Process", Risk Analysis, 18(6), pp.689~699 (1998)
  58. Marris, C., "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions : Comparison with the Psychrometric Paradigm", Risk Analysis, 18(5), pp.635~647 (1998)
  59. McKenna, F. P, "It Won’t Happen to Me : Unrealistic Optimism or Illusion of Control?", British Journal of Psychology, 84(1), pp.39~50 (1993)
  60. Oltedal, S., "Explaining Risk Perception : An Evaluation of Cultural Theory" (2004), Rotunde
  61. Peter, E., "The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(16), pp.1427~1453 (1996)
  62. Peters, R. G., "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication : An Empirical Study", Risk Analysis, 17(1), pp.43~54 (1997)
  63. Pongsoi, P., "A Review on Nuclear Power Plant Scenario in Thailand", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24, pp.586~592 (2013)
  64. Prati, G., "The Effect of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on Risk Perception, Antinuclear Behavioral Intentions, Attitude, Trust, Environmental Beliefs, and Values", Environment and Behavior, 45(6), pp.782~798 (2012)
  65. Probst, J. C., "Rural-Urban Differences in Depression Prevalence : Implications for Family Medicine", Health Service Research, 38(9), pp.653~660 (2006)
  66. Ramana, M. V, "Nuclear Policy Response to Fukushima : Exit, Voice, and Loyalty", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 69(2), pp.66~76 (2013)
  67. Renn, O, "Perception of Risks", The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 29(1), pp.102~114 (2004)
  68. Renn, O. S. M, "Public Responses to the Chernobyl Accident", Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10(2), pp.151~167 (1990)
  69. Rundmo, T., "Risk Perception by Offshore Oil Personnel during Bad Weather Conditions", Risk Analysis, 18(1), pp.111~118 (1998)
  70. Rundmo, T, "Associations Between Affect and Risk Perception", Journal of Risk Research, 5(2), pp.119~135 (2002)
  71. Schmidt, M, "Investigating Risk Perception: A Short Introduction, In Loss of Agro-biodiversity in Vavilov Centers, with a Special Focus on the Risks of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)" (2004)
  72. Siegrist, M., "Perception of Hazards : The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge", Risk Analysis, 20(5), pp.713~719 (2000)
  73. Siegrist, M, "A Causal Model Explaining the Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Gene Technology", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(10), pp.2093~2106 (1999)
  74. Siegrist, M, "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology", Risk Analysis, 20(2), pp.195~203 (2000)
  75. Siegrist, M., "Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk", Benefit Perception, 2000, pp.20(3), 353~362
  76. Siegrist, M., "Acceptance of Nuclear Power : The Fukushima Effect", Energy Policy, 59, pp.112~119 (2012)
  77. Sjöberg, L, "Strength of Belief and Risk", Policy Sciences, 11(1), pp.39~57 (1979)
  78. Sjöberg, L, "Factors in Risk Perception", Risk Analysis, 20(1), pp.1~11 (2000)
  79. Sjöberg, L, "Local Acceptance of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository", Risk Analysis, 24(3), pp.739~751 (2004)
  80. Sjӧberg, L., "Knowledge and Risk Perception among Nuclear Power Plant Employees", Risk Analysis, 11(4), pp.607~618 (1991)
  81. Slovic, P, "Perception of Risk", Science, 236(4799), pp.280~285 (1987)
  82. Slovic, P, "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy", Risk Analysis, 13(6), pp.675~682 (1993)
  83. Slovic, P, "Perception of Risk from Radiation", Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 69(3, pp.4) (1996), 5~180
  84. Slovic, P, "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science : Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield", Risk Analysis, 19(4), pp.689~701 (1999)
  85. Slovic, P., "Facts Versus Fears : Understanding Perceived Risk, In Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases" (1982), Cambridge University Press
  86. Slovic, P., "Why Study Risk Perception?", Risk Analysis, 2(2), pp.83~93 (1982)
  87. Slovic, P., "Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste", Science, 254(5038), pp.1603~1607 (1991)
  88. Slovic, P., "Risk Perception of Prescription Drugs : Report on a Survey in Canada", Canadian Journal of Public Health, 82(3), pp.15~20 (1991)
  89. Slovic, P., "Lessons from Yucca Mountain", Environment, 33(3), pp.6~30 (1991)
  90. Slovic, P., "Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Impacts of a High-level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada", Risk Analysis, 11(4), pp.683~696 (1991)
  91. Slovic, P., "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings : Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality", Risk Analysis, 24(2), pp.311~321 (2004)
  92. Slovic, P., "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings : Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality", Risk Analysis, 24(2), pp.311~322 (2004)
  93. Slovic, P., "Risk Perception and Affect", Psychological Science, 15(6), pp.322~325 (2006)
  94. Starr, C, "Social Benefit versus Technological Risk", Science, 165(3899), pp.1232~1238 (1969)
  95. Stoutenborough, J. W., "Knowledge, Risk, and Policy Support : Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power", Energy Policy, 62, pp.176~184 (2013)
  96. Van der Pligt, J., "Chernobyl : Four Year Later : Attitudes, Risk Management and Communication", Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10(2), pp.91~99 (1990)
  97. Visschers, V. H. M., "Fair Play in Energy Policy Decisions : Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness and Acceptance of the Decision to Rebuild Nuclear Power Plants", Energy Policy, 46, pp.292~300 (2012)
  98. Visschers, V. H. M., "How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power : Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster", Risk Analysis, 33(2), pp.333~347 (2013)
  99. Visschers, V. H. M., "Nuclear Power Before and After Fukushima : The Relations between Acceptance, Ambivalence and Knowledge", Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, pp.77~86 (2013)
  100. Whitefield, S. C., ""The Future of Nuclear Power : Value Orientations and Risk Perception"", Risk Analysis, 29(3), pp.425~437 (2009)
  101. Yamamura, E, "Experience of Technological and Natural Disaster and their Impact on the Perceived Risk of Nuclear Accidents After the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster in Japan 2011, A Cross-country Analysis", The Journal of Socio-Economics, 41, pp.360~363 (2012)
  102. Zeiss, C., "Waste Facility Impacts on Residential Property Values", Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 115(2), pp.64~80 (1989)

관련 논문AI추천

역대 대통령 신년사에 나타난 언어표현 전략 고찰정윤희우리말학회 · 우리말연구2019 · 제56호대통령 사과담화문의 언어 전략 분석김병홍우리말학회 · 우리말연구2014 · 제38호대한민국 대통령의 언어스타일: 연설문에 나타난 언어적 특성과 심리적 특성김경일, 김영준한국인지과학회 · 인지과학2019 · 제30권 제3호문민정부 이후 역대 대통령 미래 비전 리더십 연구: 취임사에 나타난 국가의제 및 언설(言說: statement)을 중심으로권기헌, 서인석, 이동규한국행정연구원 · 한국행정연구2011 · 제20권 제1호역대 대통령 연설문의 유형과 특징에 대한 비교연구 - 연설문의 유형, 분야, 주제, 시점을 중심으로 -이혁우, 임동완, 황창호한국공공관리학회 · 한국공공관리학보2015 · 제29권 제4호정치리더의 가치프레임: 김대중 대통령과 이명박 대통령의 취임사 비교임윤서국가정책연구소 · 국가정책연구2009 · 제23권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)

한국행정의 유교적 전통유산 I: 공자의 벼슬욕망정성호pp. 5-40Rationalism and “Modernity” in the State Examination System of Chosǒn Korea: an Analysis of Munkwa Examination Rosters, 1545-1720Hejtmanek Milanpp. 41-67한국관료제에 있어서 사법적 통제의 단절원인과 복원과정권헌영pp. 69-92행정학적 상상력의 인문적 기초임의영pp. 93-127서양 근대 행정개념의 기원에 대한 계보학적 연구: 아렌트, 푸코, 아감벤을 중심으로이문수pp. 129-162
원문 보기