ポライトネス・ストラテジーとしての「思う」と「생각하다」―指示型の発語内の力を持つ文において―
'omou' and 'saenggakhada' as Politeness Strategy -Using as Directives-
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
There has been increasing studies on the different usage of ‘omou’and ‘saenggakhada’in recent years. Prior research did not include a theoretical concept of ‘omou’ and ‘saenggakhada’, and therefore was unable to provide a scientific explanation in the comparative analysis of these two words. Drawing on the notion of hedge, speech act theory, and politeness theory, this paper focuses on ‘omou’ and ‘saenggakhada’ used as directives for politeness strategy. Prior research has shown that ‘omou’ co-occurs with a sentence which has illocutionary force as directives. However, applying the “weightiness (W) of a face-threatening act (FTAx)” from theory of politeness by Brown & Levinson (1978/1987) as a theoretical framework for the analysis, this paper finds that ‘omou’ is used as hedge in following incidences: a) where risk (R) is high and distance (D) is far, b) where risk (R) is low and distance (D) is far, and c) where risk (R) is high and distance (D) is intermediate in the value of relationship. In contrast, ‘saenggakhada’ is constrained when used as hedge in a sentence which has illocutionary force as directives, regardless of the degree of distance (D) and extent of risk (R). According to Itani (1996), “cultural aspects play an important role since the ‘appropriate’ amount of social hedging varies from culture to culture.” Using ‘omou’ and ‘saenggakhada’ as hedge supports this observation, and it can be witnessed in the context of both languages - Japanese and Korean.
Abstract
There has been increasing studies on the different usage of ‘omou’and ‘saenggakhada’in recent years. Prior research did not include a theoretical concept of ‘omou’ and ‘saenggakhada’, and therefore was unable to provide a scientific explanation in the comparative analysis of these two words. Drawing on the notion of hedge, speech act theory, and politeness theory, this paper focuses on ‘omou’ and ‘saenggakhada’ used as directives for politeness strategy. Prior research has shown that ‘omou’ co-occurs with a sentence which has illocutionary force as directives. However, applying the “weightiness (W) of a face-threatening act (FTAx)” from theory of politeness by Brown & Levinson (1978/1987) as a theoretical framework for the analysis, this paper finds that ‘omou’ is used as hedge in following incidences: a) where risk (R) is high and distance (D) is far, b) where risk (R) is low and distance (D) is far, and c) where risk (R) is high and distance (D) is intermediate in the value of relationship. In contrast, ‘saenggakhada’ is constrained when used as hedge in a sentence which has illocutionary force as directives, regardless of the degree of distance (D) and extent of risk (R). According to Itani (1996), “cultural aspects play an important role since the ‘appropriate’ amount of social hedging varies from culture to culture.” Using ‘omou’ and ‘saenggakhada’ as hedge supports this observation, and it can be witnessed in the context of both languages - Japanese and Korean.
참고문헌 (26)
- 이봉, "｢思う」と「생각하다」の用法について", 일본어학연구, (22), pp.231~241 (2008), 한국일본어학회
- 이봉, "｢思う｣と｢생각하다｣のヘッジ(hedge)としての 機能について", 일본어학연구, (25), pp.143~156 (2009), 한국일본어학회
- 李鳳, "『「思う」と「생각하다」の日韓対照研究―ヘッジとポライトネスの観点から―", 석사, pp.2014
- 李芝賢, "현대 일본어 배려표현 연구-한국어와의 대조 관점에서-", 박사, pp.2013
- 정하준, "と思う의 번역례 연구", 日本語文學, (31), pp.289~308 (2006), 한국일본어문학회
- 宇佐美まゆみ, "ポライトネス理論の展開", 月刊言語, 31(1), pp.101~105 (2002), 大修館書店
- 日本語"と思う"と朝鮮語"고 생각하다"について, 日本語と朝鮮語の対照研究Ⅱ, 心とことば－進化認知科学的展開, "生越直樹", 東京大学21世紀CEOプログラム, 47~54 (2008)
- 生越直樹, "対人行動の日韓対照研究―言語行動の基底にあるもの―", pp.31~60 (2008), ひつじ書房
- 生越直樹, "「配慮」はどのように示されるのか", pp.171~187 (2012), ひつじ書房
- 小野正樹, "ひつじ意味論講座第5 巻主観性と主体性", pp.193~209 (2011), ひつじ書房
- 中園篤典, "発話行為的引用論の試み", pp.79~123 (2006), ひつじ書房
- 森山卓郎, "文末思考動詞『思う』をめぐって―文の意味としての主観性・客観性―", 日本語学, 11(9), pp.105~116 (1992), 明治書院
- 山岡政紀, "日本語の述語と文機能", pp.31~46 (2000), くろしお出版
- 山梨正明, "発話行為", pp.9~52 (1986), 大修館書店
- Austin, J. L, "How to do things with words" (1962), Oxford University Press
- Brown, Penelope, "Politeness: Some universals in language usage", pp.55~60 (1987), Cambridge University Press
- Caffi, Claudia, "Mitigation", pp.47~68 (2007), Elsevier
- Fraser, Bruce, "SYNTAX and SEMANTICS 3: Speech Acts", pp.187~210 (1975), Academic Press
- Holmes, Janet, "Modifying illocutionary force", Journal of Pragmatics, 8, pp.345~365 (1984)
- Itani, Reiko, "Semantics and Pragmatics of Hedges in English and Japanese", pp.9~53 (1996), Hituzi Syobo
- Lakoff, George, "Hedges:a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fussy concepts", The 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp.182~228 (1972)
- Searle, John R, "Speech Acts：An Essay in the Philosophy of Language;言語行為―言語行為理論研究―", pp.1~51 (1986), Cambridge University Press;勁草書房
- Searle, John R, "The classification of illocutionary acts", Language in Society, 8, pp.137~151 (1977)
- Searle, John R, "Expression and Meaning ：Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts;表現と意味―言語行為理論 研究―", pp.1~51 (2006), Cambridge University Press;誠信書房
- Yang Huang, "Pragmatics", pp.91~131 (2007), Oxford University Press
- Yokomizo Shinichiro, "Believing, Wanting, and Feeling : Three Representational Modes of Embedded Propositional Contents", 世界の日本語教育, (8), pp.167~189 (1998), 国際 交流基金日本語国際センター