대학(원)생의 교수 대상 호칭어 사용 양상에 대한 사회언어학적 연구

김신각(Kim, Shingak),조태린(Cho, Tae-Rin) 한국사회언어학회 2022 사회언어학 Vol.30 No.1

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usage of address terms for professors by undergraduate and graduate students by the sociolinguistic methodology. To this end, this paper applied an integrated approach that combines quantitative analysis based on the response results of multiple-choice questions in the survey and qualitative interpretation based on the response results of subjective questions in both the survey and the in-depth interview. First, through quantitative analysis of the variation in the use of address terms, it was confirmed that “professor” occupies an overwhelming proportion and that the academic field of the speaker is the most important factor. The higher the intimacy with professors, the more “teacher” was used. Next, through the qualitative interpretation of the reason and meaning of using their choice of address terms, the most basic and superficial reason was to follow the experiences and customs in the affiliated community. The use of “professor” had some reasons or meanings such as meeting courtesy and expectations, highlighting privileged status, and equal respect for all the faculty members, whereas “teacher” was used as an expression of intimacy.

서울 거주 방언 화자의 코드 선택 양상 - 20∼30대 경상도 출신 방언 화자를 중심으로 -

김경아 ( Kim Kyungah ),김신각 ( Kim Shingak ),이창봉 ( Lee Changbong ),진혜경 ( Jin Hyekyung ) 연세대학교 언어정보연구원(구 연세대학교 언어정보개발원) 2016 언어사실과 관점 Vol.39 No.-

The purpose of this study is to examine and consider the aspects of code choices of “dialect speakers residing in Seoul,” who have moved to Seoul from other regions of South Korea. The dialect speakers experience dialect contact and language conflict on individual levels after moving to Seoul. In this process, they learn new codes and perform a code choice according to the situation they face. Seoul, the target region in this study, is the capital of South Korea and has seen population increase due to migration from other regions of the country. Thus, the city is appropriate for examination of migrations between the regions in South Korea. In addition, Seoul dialect is a local dialect based on which the standard language of the country is established. Therefore, Seoul dialect is regarded as the standard language itself, having social prestige higher than other local dialects. For this reason, the migrants experience language conflict in Seoul. In this study, three codes of the standard language, Seoul dialect, and the hometown dialect, are proposed, and an inquiry is conducted on the awareness of each code and code choices according to various situations. The inquiry includes an interview (responses from 17 people) and a survey of which the target is limited to the dialect speakers in Seoul in their 20s and 30s (responses from 146 people). The result of the survey showed the response rate of 68.5% by the Gyeongsang-dialect speakers; thus, an analysis is performed concentrated on the Gyeongsang-dialect speakers. According to the result of the analysis, few migrants showed negative perception toward the standard language, Seoul dialect, and the hometown dialect. Meanwhile, the migrants generally felt negative to the obligatory use of the standard language, and showed more or less neutral responses to the use of the standard language in official situations such as announcements, presentations, job interviews, or business meetings. Nonetheless, the dialect speakers in Seoul chose the standard language as the basic code in most situations, their perception and attitudes toward each code not coinciding with their aspects of code choices. A limited number of the code choices were shown for the hometown dialect. The code conversion from the standard language to the hometown dialect occurred only when at least one of the factors of “talking with the person who also uses the hometown dialect,” “feeling intimacy towards the person involved in the conversation,” and “having an experience of talking in the hometown dialect in Seoul” is satisfied, though the priority among these factors could not be investigated due to individual differences. These three factors respectively represent “the same linguistic community,” “a close personal relationship,” and “an experience of using the code of the hometown dialect,” which means that the code conversion to the hometown dialect by the Seoul-residing dialect speakers appears only in the environment where “the psychological distance to the person involved in the conversation is very close.” This result seems to be related to the language use in the cities, where contacts with strangers are frequent, and also seems to indicate that the dialect speakers feel very distant from others in language use under the linguistic environment of Seoul.

비윤리적 언어 표현의 의미 자질에 따른 하위 유형 연구: -대화형 인공지능의 윤리적 언어 표현을 위한 기초 연구(2) -

조태린 ( Cho Tae-rin ),김신각 ( Kim Shin-gak ),신유리 ( Shin Yu-ri ),공나형 ( Kong Na-hyung ),신아영 ( Shin A-young ) 한민족문화학회 2018 한민족문화연구 Vol.63 No.-

본고는 대화형 인공지능의 윤리적 언어 표현을 위한 기초 연구의 일환으로 비윤리적 언어 표현을 의미 자질을 기준으로 하위 유형으로 분류하고 각 하위 유형의 대표 사례와 특징을 살펴보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위해 본고는 먼저 욕설 또는 비속어의 하위 유형 분류에 대한 기존 연구들을 비판적으로 검토하고, 비윤리적 언어 표현의 의미 자질을 기준으로 좀 더 체계적이고 객관적인 하위 유형 분류의 틀을 제시하였다. 본고에서 적용한 의미 자질 대립쌍은 [±인간], [±사회성], [±내면성], [±행위성], [±지시성], [±상하], [±나이], [±선택], [±지능], [±부분], [±질환], [±요구], [±실체성], [±감탄] 등 14가지이며, 이를 통해 ‘연령’, ‘지위’, ‘직업’, ‘출신’, ‘지력’, ‘행태’, ‘부위’, ‘장애’, ‘외모’, ‘명령’, ‘행동’, ‘구체물’, ‘추상물’, ‘감정’, ‘성상’ 등 총 15개의 하위 유형을 분류하였다. 본고는 이러한 하위 유형 분류 분류가 지금까지 수집한 비윤리적 언어 표현들은 물론이고 앞으로 추가적으로 수집할 표현들을 일관성 있게 정리하는 데에 큰 도움이 될 것이라고 본다. 그리고 궁극적으로는 대화형 인공지능이 비윤리적 언어 표현을 좀 더 객관적이고 체계적으로 인식하는 데에도 도움이 될 것으로 기대한다. The purpose of this study is to classify unethical linguistic expressions(ULEs) into subtypes based on semantic features as a basic research for ethical linguistic expression of interactive artificial intelligence, and to examine representative cases and characteristics of each subtype-classification. For this purpose, this study first critically examined the existing studies on the subtype-classification of 'swear word', 'vulgar word' or 'slang', and suggested a more systematic and objective subtype-classification framework based on the semantic features of ULEs. There are 14 pairs of semantic features applied to this study:[±human], [±sociality], [±interiority], [±activity], [±referentiality], [±hierarchy], [±age], [±choice], [±intelligence], [±part], [±disease], [±demand], [±substantiality], [±admiration]. And through these, 15 subtypes were classified: 'age', 'status', 'occupation', 'origin', 'intelligence', 'behavior', 'region', 'disability', 'appearance', 'command', 'action', 'material', 'abstraction', 'emotion', ‘attribute’. This subtype-classification will be a contribute to organize the ULEs collected so far, as well as the additional expressions to be gathered in the future in a consistent manner. And ultimately, it is expected that this research will help the interactive artificial intelligence to recognize the ULEs more objectively and systematically.

대화형 인공지능의 윤리적 언어 표현을 위한 기초 연구

조태린(Cho, Tae-Rin),김신각(Kim, Shin-Gak),유희재(Yu, Hui-Jae),김예지(Kim, Ye-Ji),이주희(Lee, Ju-Hee) 한국어문학회 2018 語文學 Vol.0 No.140

The purpose of this study is to set up the concept and classification standard of unethical linguistic expressions(ULEs) as word unit that can appear in the machine learning of interactive artificial intelligence systems and humans conversation. The study also examined the characteristics of each type, based on examples. According to the results of the study, ULEs as word unit can be divided into three categories: ‘swear words’, ‘vulgar words’, and ‘derogatory slangs’. These three types are common in that they are all regarded as ULEs in any variance of emergence. However, they differ in two attributes, aggression and degradation. This study also suggests that there are two other types of ULEs: the ‘Context’ type, in which certain expressions may or may not be used unethically according to the context, and the ‘Content’ type, which can not be considered unethical linguistic expression in of itself, but its related content can be unethical linguistic expression overall. Therefore, this study identifies that the word-based unethical linguistic expression is classified into five types such as ‘swear words’, ‘vulgar words’, ‘derogatory slang’, ‘context’, and ‘content’, and each of these characteristics and examples were reviewed extensively.