영국 브렉시트(Brexit) 토론에 나타난 영어 공손전략
English Politeness Strategies during the English Brexit Debate
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this study is to investigate the different types of politeness strategies that were used in the context of different utterance relationships during a television debate. The 2016 Brexit BBC debate was chosen for the data analysis. When communicating in debate, people use different politeness strategies related to ‘utterance relationships’ in different contexts. Three different utterance relationships were found during the debate: Audience vs Debate panel, Leave vs Remain panel, Moderator vs Panels. A total of 766 thought units were analyzed based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness strategies and placed into three utterance relationships. The results showed that positive politeness strategy was the highest strategy in most utterance relationships. However, people used the positive politeness strategy differently amongst the different utterance relationships. The panels overwhelmingly used the positive strategy toward the audience. However, the differences in each strategy were not significant when the debaters directly interacted in the debate. The role of the moderator was crucial in a debate of this great scale and the positive strategy was used more than any other to save the debaters' face. The research confirms that the different strategies are needed in conversations by different utterance relationships due to the unbalanced power between speakers and hearers and it is difficult to engage in Face Threatening Acts (FTA) even though each panel is on a completely different side when communicating in public.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the different types of politeness strategies that were used in the context of different utterance relationships during a television debate. The 2016 Brexit BBC debate was chosen for the data analysis. When communicating in debate, people use different politeness strategies related to ‘utterance relationships’ in different contexts. Three different utterance relationships were found during the debate: Audience vs Debate panel, Leave vs Remain panel, Moderator vs Panels. A total of 766 thought units were analyzed based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness strategies and placed into three utterance relationships. The results showed that positive politeness strategy was the highest strategy in most utterance relationships. However, people used the positive politeness strategy differently amongst the different utterance relationships. The panels overwhelmingly used the positive strategy toward the audience. However, the differences in each strategy were not significant when the debaters directly interacted in the debate. The role of the moderator was crucial in a debate of this great scale and the positive strategy was used more than any other to save the debaters' face. The research confirms that the different strategies are needed in conversations by different utterance relationships due to the unbalanced power between speakers and hearers and it is difficult to engage in Face Threatening Acts (FTA) even though each panel is on a completely different side when communicating in public.
참고문헌 (19)
- 곽면선, "미국 대선 토론에 나타난 영어 화용론적 체면전략", 현대영어영문학, 59(2), pp.21~44 (2015), 한국현대영어영문학회
- 김철규, "2016년 영국 신문의 브렉시트(Brexit) 관련 텍스트에 관한 코퍼스 언어학적 분석", 언어연구, 33(1), pp.71~98 (2017), 한국현대언어학회[DOI]
- 범기수, "2010년 영국 총선 3당 당수 TV 토론의 진행형식 및 내용분석", 한국소통학보, (16), pp.143~187 (2011), 한국소통학회
- 이승희, "트위터의 매체 간 의제설정: TV 토론 방송과 트위터의 여론 형성 과정에 관한 연구", 한국콘텐츠학회 논문지, 14(1), pp.139~149 (2014), 한국콘텐츠학회[DOI]
- 이재승, "브렉시트 캠페인 기간 동안 영어 미디어에 나타난 이민자들", 비교문화연구, 45, pp.325~348 (2016), 비교문화연구소[DOI]
- 최윤선, "미국, 프랑스, 한국의 정치담화 내용분석: 대통령 선거 TV 토론을 중심으로", 언론과학연구, 5(3), pp.658~681 (2005), 한국지역언론학회
- Benoit, W. L., "Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates" (1996), University of Alabama Press
- Beom, K., "Face Threatening", Supporting Strategies in Korean and American TV Presidential Debates: A Cultural Comparative Study, 2010, pp.19(2), 1~21
- 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.2196~2218 (2001)
- Deacon, D., "EU Referendum Analysis 2016: Media, Voters and the Campaign Early Reflections from Leading UK Academics", pp.34~35 (2016), The Centre for the Study of Journalism, Culture and Community, Bournemouth University
- 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)
- Seaton, J., "Brexit and the Media", The Political Quarterly, 87, pp.333~337 (2016)
- Shaw, S., "UK Press Coverage of the EU Referendum" (2016), Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford University
- Ting-Toomy, S., "Theorizing about Intercultural Communication", pp.71~92 (2005), Sage
- "BBC EU Brexit Referendum: The Great Debate"[URL]