대선 토론 담화에서 나타나는 말차례 끼어들기와 반응하기 현상 연구

Abstract

This study tried to clarify in detail the patterns of turn-taking interrupting and response to them in the 2022 presidential candidate debate discourse. Among the 2022 presidential debates, "Joint Invitation in three broadcasting companies 2022 Presidential Candidate Debate" and "Candidate Debate for Invitation by the National Election Debate Committee" were used were used as analysis data. Within each two-hour data, the part turn-taking interrupting and response occurred was analyzed after transcription, the frequency the strategy was used was aggregated, and the results were examined. The transcribed volume is about 5,787 words, which is about 170 paragraphs when the paragraphs are grouped into units of common topics. Turn-taking interrupting was found to be 5.1 percent of accidental turn-taking interrupting and 94.9 percent of intentional turn-taking interrupting. It can be seen that most of the interventions are strategically used by candidates. In intentional turn-taking interrupting, friendly turn-taking interrupting appeared in the order of ‘audience response signal > intimacy request > dialogue co-organization’, ‘rejecting and opposing > evaluating negatively > getting angry’, and the neutral turn-taking interrupting was in the order of ‘pointing out the order of the turn-taking > proceeding the next order > changing the atmosphere > preventing departure from the topic’. Turn-taking response was found to be 78.9 percent of maintaining the turn-taking and 20.2 percent of turn-taking. This is because the preceding speaker has a large tendency to maintain his or her turn regarding the subsequent speaker's interrupting in his or her turn. In the maintenance of the turn-taking, it was in the order of ‘ignore > maintenance after a short reaction’, and in the act of passing the turn-taking, it was in the order of ‘stop firing > answering back’. In the presidential debate, it was found that candidates actively use turn-taking interrupting and response, unlike other debates, to highlight their pledges and capabilities, because they have a clear purpose to receive more voters' choices in a short period of time. Although this study has limitations in that it dealt with only candidates' behavior among nonverbal factors, it is significant in that it presents an analysis of frequency and deals with both quantitative and technical analysis, unlike previous studies. In the future, better research results will be possible if we examine the characteristics of turn-taking interrupting and response in turn by considering the debater's speech method and prosody factors together.