본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

토론 담화에 나타난 토론 양상 및 표지어 분석 연구 -제1회 경북 학생 3담꾼(群) 토론대회 군(郡)부 결승전 자료를 바탕으로-

A Study on the Analysis of Debate Type and Marker Emerged during Debate Discourse

0

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류한국어와문학

초록

This research analyzes appearance and makers of debate shown in discussion and conversation based on the data from The 1st Debate Competition of Secondary Students finals held by Gyungbuk Office of Education. This competition’s debate formation was a public forum debate which was progressed in the order of planning→cross questioning→refuting→cross questioning→summarizing→cross questioning→focusing. Although the data was from the finals, students were debating without the accurate awareness on the rules of planning, refuting, summarizing, and focusing. Most of their statement was nothing more than an assertion without any logical basis. Moreover, during cross questioning, there was a repetitive statement and content which were digressed from the topic. For the aspects of discourse markers shown in debate, I divided this into 2; appointed markers of relationship object, regulated markers of relationship type. In case of appointed markers, commanding type and repeating type were the major markers. This carries existing informativeness in terms of rementioning the previous statement. Therefore, this research suggests to educate students with markers of relationship object of ‘listen as you summarize.’ For regulated markers of relationship type, core markers, additional relationship markers, listing markers, comparing and comparison markers, cause and result markers, and problem-solving markers were the main types. This shows aspects of composition aspects of meaning structure by specifying the relationship types established between the subjects. This research carefully suggests to divide regulated markers of relationship type into structure markers, focus markers, and specification markers to structuralize the debate point and then educate in relation to the speaking. Those debate education conducted during Korean class requires you to concentrate on the ‘language.’ By analyzing debate type, I realized there needs to be an improvement on listening and speaking, which are the 2 key factors. I expect that students get a systemic education on how to effectively listen and speak in debate by using markers and utilize this not only in debate and conversation but also extend it to various locution.

Abstract

This research analyzes appearance and makers of debate shown in discussion and conversation based on the data from The 1st Debate Competition of Secondary Students finals held by Gyungbuk Office of Education. This competition’s debate formation was a public forum debate which was progressed in the order of planning→cross questioning→refuting→cross questioning→summarizing→cross questioning→focusing. Although the data was from the finals, students were debating without the accurate awareness on the rules of planning, refuting, summarizing, and focusing. Most of their statement was nothing more than an assertion without any logical basis. Moreover, during cross questioning, there was a repetitive statement and content which were digressed from the topic. For the aspects of discourse markers shown in debate, I divided this into 2; appointed markers of relationship object, regulated markers of relationship type. In case of appointed markers, commanding type and repeating type were the major markers. This carries existing informativeness in terms of rementioning the previous statement. Therefore, this research suggests to educate students with markers of relationship object of ‘listen as you summarize.’ For regulated markers of relationship type, core markers, additional relationship markers, listing markers, comparing and comparison markers, cause and result markers, and problem-solving markers were the main types. This shows aspects of composition aspects of meaning structure by specifying the relationship types established between the subjects. This research carefully suggests to divide regulated markers of relationship type into structure markers, focus markers, and specification markers to structuralize the debate point and then educate in relation to the speaking. Those debate education conducted during Korean class requires you to concentrate on the ‘language.’ By analyzing debate type, I realized there needs to be an improvement on listening and speaking, which are the 2 key factors. I expect that students get a systemic education on how to effectively listen and speak in debate by using markers and utilize this not only in debate and conversation but also extend it to various locution.

참고문헌 (19)

  1. 구항희, "2009 개정 교육과정에 따른 현장적용의 실제-토론수업, 성취 기준을 중심으로, '2009 개정국어과 교육과정에 따른 국어과 교육과정 편성․운영'연수 자료집", 경상북도국어교과교육연구회, 101~152 (2012)
  2. 교육부, "국어과 교육과정 제 2007-79호", 교육인적자원부, ~ (2007)
  3. "교육인적자원부", 2007
  4. 교육부, "고등학교 교육과정 해설 제 2009-41호", 교육과학기술부, ~ (2009)
  5. "교육과학기술부", 2011
  6. 강태완, "토론의 방법" (2001), 커뮤니케이션북스
  7. 김봉순, "‘텍스트 구조 표지’의 독해에서의 기능", 국어교육학연구, 5, pp.75~98 (1995), 국어교육학회
  8. 金烽洵, "텍스트 의미 구조의 표지 연구", 박사, 국어교육, pp.1996
  9. 민병곤, "논증 교육의 내용 연구 : 6, 8, 10학년 학습자의 작문 및 토론 분석을 바탕으로", 박사, 국어교육, pp.2004
  10. 박영순, "한국어 담화, 텍스트론" (2004), 한국문화사
  11. 염혜경, "학문 목적 학습자를 위한 텍스트 구조 및 텍스트 구조 표지 어 활용 전략", 한국언어문화교육학회 학술대회, pp.229~241 (2010)
  12. 이선영, "토론 교육 내용 체계 연구 : 초·중·고 토론대회 담화 분석을 바탕으로", 박사, 국어교육, pp.2011
  13. 이창덕, "화법교육론" (2010), 역락
  14. 임칠성, "토론의 본질과 토론 지도", 화법연구, (18), pp.103~130 (2011), 한국화법학회
  15. 전은경, "담화구조 표시어가 영어독해에 미치는 영향", 영어교육연구, 18(3), pp.223~252 (2006), 팬코리아영어교육학회
  16. 조재윤, "2007 개정 교육과정에서의 토론의 성격 탐색", 화법연구, (18), pp.161~188 (2011), 한국화법학회
  17. 황미향, "한국어 텍스트의 구성소 분석", 텍스트 언어학, 6, pp.187~207 (1999), 텍스트 언 어학회
  18. Kieras, D. E, "Thematic processes in the comprehension of technical prose, Understanding expository text", pp.89~108 (1985)
  19. Meyer, B. J. . E, "Signaling the structure of text, The technology of text Ⅱ" (1985), Educational Technology Publications

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (14건)