본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

적합성이론(Relevance Theory)으로 논증을 들여다보기

Encompassing argumentation by Relevance Theory

김대영
언어과학회 (The Linguistic Science Society)|2022.12|언어과학연구 (The Journal of Linguistics Science)|제103호|pp. 147-184

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

맥락효과(contextual effect)의사소통(communication)논증(argumentation)적합성원리(principle of relevance)논증적 의도(argumentative intention)
주제분류언어학

초록

This paper aims to make a pragmatic account of encompassing argumentation by a communicative theory such as Relevance Theory (RT). While communication can be viewed as a discourse in which communicators share their intentions with each other, argumentation is a process of vindicating something in a systematized and logical way, which consists of one or more claims, and presents one or more grounds for supporting them. In general, a speaker conveys his intention to a hearer for the purpose of making an influence in the hearer’s mind. With reference to this point, there have been two relevant pragmatic theories such as RT and Argumentation Theory (AT). Judging from the pragmatic point of view, argumentation can be viewed as a part of communication; thus, it is possible to assume that RT could effectively encompass argumentation. This paper argues that although RT has focuses more on examining the process of communication than how argumentation is performed, by extending the range of its application, it can integrate AT and successfully cover the domain of argumentation as well.

Abstract

This paper aims to make a pragmatic account of encompassing argumentation by a communicative theory such as Relevance Theory (RT). While communication can be viewed as a discourse in which communicators share their intentions with each other, argumentation is a process of vindicating something in a systematized and logical way, which consists of one or more claims, and presents one or more grounds for supporting them. In general, a speaker conveys his intention to a hearer for the purpose of making an influence in the hearer’s mind. With reference to this point, there have been two relevant pragmatic theories such as RT and Argumentation Theory (AT). Judging from the pragmatic point of view, argumentation can be viewed as a part of communication; thus, it is possible to assume that RT could effectively encompass argumentation. This paper argues that although RT has focuses more on examining the process of communication than how argumentation is performed, by extending the range of its application, it can integrate AT and successfully cover the domain of argumentation as well.

참고문헌 (55)

  1. 강성영, "뒤크로의 토포이 이론에 있어서 토포이의 기능과 위상", 불어불문학연구, 34, pp.375~396 (1997)
  2. 구자은, "적절성이론의 제응집연어 적용가능성 고찰", 신영어영문학, (34), pp.201~225 (2006), 신영어영문학회
  3. 김상희, "함축이론과 수사학 - 적합성이론을 중심으로-", 한국프랑스학논집, 48, pp.25~46 (2004), 한국프랑스학회
  4. 김인곤, ""국가"5권에서 논의된 doxa와 episteme", 철학논구, 16, pp.65~81 (1988)
  5. 김춘경, "상담학 사전" (2016), 학지자
  6. 김태옥, "담화 연구의 텍스트성 이론과 적합성 이론", 담화와 인지, 1, pp.1~78 (1995)
  7. 문숙영, "관련성 이론의 관점에서 본 접속부사의 의미기능", 國語學, (88), pp.97~136 (2018), 국어학회
  8. 송병우, "설득 담화 속의 개념적 은유", 국어국문학, (150), pp.5~28 (2008), 국어국문학회[DOI]
  9. 오유석, "회의주의자와 doxa - 아르케실라오스와 카르네아데스의 입장", 철학, (83), pp.89~114 (2005), 한국철학회
  10. 이성범, "추론의 화용론" (2001), 한국문화사
  11. 이성범, "영어화용론" (2002), 한국문화사
  12. 정혜인, "공손성과 관련성 이론", 국제언어문학, (38), pp.201~222 (2017), 국제언어문학회
  13. 홍종화, "논증과 토포이", 불어불문학연구, (54), pp.837~859 (2003), 한국불어불문학회
  14. Allan, K., "Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics", pp.285~310 (2013), Springer
  15. Amossy, R., "L’agumentation dans le discours: Discours politique, littérature d’idées, fiction" (2000), Les Édition Nathan
  16. Anscombre, J. C., "Théorie des topoï", pp.11~47 (1995), Les Édition Kimé
  17. Aristotle, "Rhetoric" (2020), Digireads.com Publishing
  18. Bakhtin, M., "Rabelais and his world" (1984), Indiana University Press
  19. Carston, R., "The handbook of pragmatics", pp.633~656 (2006), Blackwell
  20. Clark, B., "Relevance theory" (2013), Cambridge University Press
  21. Dascal, M., "The marriage of pragmatics and rhetoric", Philosophy and rhetoric, 32(2), pp.107~130 (1999)
  22. Dendale, P., "Three linguistic theories of polyphony", dialogism: An external point of view and comparison, 2006, pp.5, 3~32
  23. Ducrot, O., "Le dire et le dit" (1984), Les Éditions de Minuit
  24. Eco, U., "The name of the rose" (2014), HarperVia
  25. Genette, G., "Fiction and diction" (1993), Cornell University Press
  26. Grice, H. P., "Meaning", Philosophical Review, 66, pp.377~388 (1957)
  27. Gumperz, J., "Mutualities in dialogue", pp.101~123 (1995), Cambridge University Press
  28. Habermas, J., "The theory of communicative action Vol. 1" (1984), Beacon Press
  29. Hovland, C., "Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change" (1953), Yale University Press
  30. Hitler, A., (2014), 동서문화사
  31. Iten, C., "The relevance of argumentation theory", Lingua, 110, pp.665~699 (2000)
  32. Kreckel, M., "Communicative acts and shared knowledge in natural discourse" (1981), Academic Press
  33. Lakoff, G., "Metaphors we live by" (1980), The University of Chicago Press
  34. Larson, B. N., "Relevance and irrelevance", pp.69~95 (2018), Walter de Gruyter
  35. Lee, B. P. H., "Mutual knowledge, background knowledge and shared beliefs : Their roles in establishing common ground", Journal of Pragmatics, 33, pp.21~44 (2001)
  36. Lewis, D., "Convention: A philosophical study" (1969), Harvard University Press
  37. Moeshler, J., "Argumentation et conversation" (1985), Hatier
  38. Moeshler, J., "Théorie pragmatique et pragmatique conversationnelle" (1996), Armand Colin
  39. Mercier, H., "Why do human reason? : Arguments for an argumentative theory", Behavioral and Brain sciences, 34, pp.57~111 (2011)
  40. Perelman, C., "L’empire rhétorique" (1977), Vrin
  41. Perelman, C., "Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique" (1958), Édition de l’Université de Bruxells
  42. Plantin, C., "L’argumentation" (1996), Seuil
  43. Plato, "The Republic", pp.1985, Plato
  44. Prince, G., "A dictionary of narratology" (2003), University of Nebraska Press
  45. Schiffer, S., "Meaning" (1972), Oxford University Press
  46. Sperber, D., "Collective wisodom: Principles and mechanisms", pp.368~392 (2012), Cambridge University Press
  47. Sperber, D., "Mutual knowledge", pp.61~85 (1982), Academic Press
  48. Sperber, D., "The ends of rhetoric: History, theory, practice", pp.140~155 (1990), Stanford University Press
  49. Sperber, D., "Relevance: Communication and cognition" (1995), Blackwell
  50. Sperber, D., "Relevance theory:Applications and implications", pp.283~293 (1998), John Benjamins
  51. Stalnaker, R., "Common ground", Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, pp.701~721 (2002)
  52. Toulmin, S., "The uses of argument" (2003), Cambridge University Press
  53. Van Eemeren, F. H., "Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective" (1992), Lawrence Erlbaum
  54. Van Eemeren, F. H., "A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach" (2004), Cambridge University Press
  55. Wright, J. S., "Advertising" (1982), McGraw-Hill

관련 논문AI추천

Communication, Argumentation and Relevance김대영한국언어학회 · 언어2014 · 제39권 제4호은유로 논증하기: 적합성이론에 의한 은유광고담화에 나타나는 논증분석과 그 함의김대영, 안병길언어과학회 · 언어과학연구2019 · 제91호발화 의미와 외축(Explicature)이상철, 정혜인한국현대언어학회 · 언어연구2017 · 제32권 제4호적합성원리를 통해서 본 대중적 의사소통 속에서의 아이러니 사용과 구현, 그리고 그 화용론적 함의김대영대한영어영문학회 · 영어영문학연구2022 · 제48권 제1호사회적 친밀감 조성/증대를 위한 담화전략으로서의 아이러니 사용과 그 원리, 그리고 적합성김대영대한영어영문학회 · 영어영문학연구2019 · 제45권 제3호적합성 원리와 광고속 비유법의 일치성박기태한국언어과학회 · 언어과학2021 · 제28권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (20건)

Epistemic constraints on the use of discourse marker of course이예식, 김지희pp. 1-27영어학 학술논문의 영문초록에 나타난 언어적 특성 비교: 영어 비원어민(한국인)과 원어민을 중심으로안병길pp. 29-56한국어 계승어 화자의 발화오류와 사용 특징 연구전지현, 박기성, 김태호, 이한규, 강은지, 김정윤, 변우영, 조세연pp. 57-79Syntactic priming in the L2 neural language model박명관, 최선주pp. 81-104한국 대학생 영어작문 학습자 코퍼스에 나타나는 어휘결합과 오류분석최진숙pp. 105-125
원문 보기