미국 대통령 선거 텔레비전 토론에 나타난 영어 공손전략 – 2016년 대통령선거를 중심으로
English Politeness Strategies in the American Television Presidential Debates – Focusing on the Presidential Election in 2016
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this study is to investigate the different types of politeness strategies that are used between the different participants based on the theory of politeness strategy put forward by Brown and Levinson(1987), in relation to U.S. Presidential debates. A televised debate from the 2016 American Presidential Election was chosen for the data analysis. A total of 918 thought units were analyzed and the results showed that the positive politeness strategies were used most by both participants. In case of Clinton, the positive politeness strategies were used overwhelmingly. However, bald on record was the second most highly used and the difference between the first and second was a small margin in the utterance of Trump. In the negative strategies, questions and hedges were used most in both candidates. In off record strategies, both candidates frequently used overstate. As politically damaging information towards both candidates were revealed before the debate, the debaters performed face threatening acts primarily to attack the positive public image of their opponent.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the different types of politeness strategies that are used between the different participants based on the theory of politeness strategy put forward by Brown and Levinson(1987), in relation to U.S. Presidential debates. A televised debate from the 2016 American Presidential Election was chosen for the data analysis. A total of 918 thought units were analyzed and the results showed that the positive politeness strategies were used most by both participants. In case of Clinton, the positive politeness strategies were used overwhelmingly. However, bald on record was the second most highly used and the difference between the first and second was a small margin in the utterance of Trump. In the negative strategies, questions and hedges were used most in both candidates. In off record strategies, both candidates frequently used overstate. As politically damaging information towards both candidates were revealed before the debate, the debaters performed face threatening acts primarily to attack the positive public image of their opponent.
참고문헌 (16)
- 곽면선, "영국 브렉시트(Brexit) 토론에 나타난 영어 공손전략", 언어연구, 34(1), pp.9~30 (2018), 한국현대언어학회[DOI]
- 곽면선, "미국 대선 토론에 나타난 영어 화용론적 체면전략", 현대영어영문학, 59(2), pp.21~44 (2015), 한국현대영어영문학회
- 범기수, "2010년 영국 총선 3당 당수 TV 토론의 진행형식 및 내용분석", 한국소통학보, (16), pp.143~187 (2011), 한국소통학회
- 이은희, "시사 토론에서의 체면 전략 실현 양상", 한중인문학연구, (42), pp.67~87 (2014), 한중인문학회
- Benoit, W. L., "Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates" (1996), University of Alabama Press
- Brown, P., "Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction", pp.56~310 (1978), Cambridge University Press
- Brown, P., "Politeness : Some universals in language usage" (1987), Cambridge University Press
- Carlin, D., "The Influence of Format and Questions on Candidates’ Strategies Argument Choices in the 2000 Presidential Debates", American Behavioral Scientist, 44, pp.2196~2118 (2001)
- Cupach, W. R., "Face-work" (1994), Sage
- Goffman, E., "Interaction Ritual : Essays on Face-to-face Behavior" (1967), Anchor Books
- Hatfield, J. D., "The Comparative Utility of Three Types of Behavioral Units for Interaction Analysis", Communication Monographs, 45, pp.44~50 (1978)
- Hinck. E. A., "Politeness Strategies in the 1992 Vice Presidential and Presidential Debates", Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, pp.234~250 (2002)
- Morris, E. R., "A Clash Strategy Analysis of Contemporary General Election Presidential Debates", doctor, pp.2004
- "중앙일보 2016월 11월 6일" (2016)[URL]
- "The Washington Post October 8th 2016" (2016)[URL]
- "The New York Times October 10th, 2016" (2016)[URL]