http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
개별검색 DB통합검색이 안되는 DB는 DB아이콘을 클릭하여 이용하실 수 있습니다.
통계정보 및 조사
예술 / 패션
<해외전자자료 이용권한 안내>
- 이용 대상 : RISS의 모든 해외전자자료는 교수, 강사, 대학(원)생, 연구원, 대학직원에 한하여(로그인 필수) 이용 가능
- 구독대학 소속 이용자: RISS 해외전자자료 통합검색 및 등록된 대학IP 대역 내에서 24시간 무료 이용
- 미구독대학 소속 이용자: RISS 해외전자자료 통합검색을 통한 오후 4시~익일 오전 9시 무료 이용
※ 단, EBSCO ASC/BSC(오후 5시~익일 오전 9시 무료 이용)
현대인들은 광고의 홍수라고 해도 과언이 아닐 정도로 수많은 광고 속에 살고있다. 광고가 범람하면 할수록 광고가 타겟으로 하는 잠재적 소비자들의 광고에 대한 신뢰도는 떨어지게 된다. 그 결과 광고주들은 새롭고도 다양한 기법과 전략으로 소비자들의 관심을 끌고 궁극적으로 자신들의 메시지를 받아들이게끔 유도한다. 그런 과정에서 광고주들이 가장 심혈을 기울이는 것 중의 하나는 소비자들에게 전달할 광고 메시지의 기본이 되는 광고 문안의 작성과 제시라고 할 수 있다. 이와 관련하여 Simpson(2001)은 광고주들의 전략에 따른 광고 담화의 유형을 2가지로 구분하는 유명한 도식(schema)을 제시하고 있다. ‘심슨 스키마’로 알려진 이 도식은 상품을 구매해야 할 이유를 제시하는 방식에서의 직접성 정도에 초점을 맞추고 있는데 그 동안 광고 담화의 연구에서 거의 무비판적으로 받아들여져 왔다. 본 연구에서는 이 도식의 문제점들을 화용론적 관점에서 지적하고 있고 단순히 직접성/간접성의 1차원적인 분석보다는 직접성/간접성과 별도로 이유지향성을 설정하는 2차원적 접근을 대안으로 제시하고 실제 광고 사례에 유형별로 적용하고 있다. This paper focuses on what is known as Simpson’s Schema, which is a schematic representation of a variety of distinctions found in advertising texts. The schema is based on the binary distinction of ‘reason’and ‘tackle’ proposed by Bernstein (1974) and expands on some key notions of major theories of pragmatics. Although Simpson (2001) argues that Bernstein’s distinction can be accommodated systematically within contemporary frameworks of language and discourse, this study points out that the direct-oblique continuum that plays a central role in Simpson’s Schema is not analogous to what Simpson calls ‘maximal efficiency to implicature’continuum. Nor is it to the politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). Moreover, Simpson’s directness/indirectness distinction does not always parallel strong/weak relevance distinction made by Sperber and Wilson (1986). Using the real advertising data, the present study shows that the distinction between ‘reason’and ‘tickle’ or between ‘direct’and ‘oblique’ does not correspond to those key notions of various pragmatic theories, but can be utilized in a complementary manner in accounting for the pragmatic characteristics of advertising language.
This paper investigates how the emotion of anger is expressed in three different languages: Korean, English and Japanese. The study focuses on the ways of verbalizing public indignation by the speakers of each lan-guage as they responded to the common international issue of Islamic militants` threatening to kill their hostages, and to their own domestic issues such as the Ferry Disaster in Korea, the nuclear power plant melt-down in Japan and the police shooting of a black man in Ferguson, Missouri, USA. The incidents attracted huge attention in each country, generating a storm of angry reactions. A total of 1,349 expressions are collected from the Internet and analyzed in terms of ten `anger realization strategies` identified in the data. The strategies are further discussed in connection with `anger expression styles` such as `anger-out`, `anger-in` and `anger-control` to examine and compare the ways of expressing indignation in the frame-work of contrastive pragmatics.
An utterance is defamatory when it can bring someone into contempt, disrepute or ridicule. It involves the use of inappropriate and aggressive verbal expressions that are regarded as impolite speech acts and hence go beyond the proper limits of tolerance in the context of social communication. The aim of this study is to show how Koreans perceive and respond to various types of defamatory speech. To this end, a questionnaire survey for native speakers of Korean was conducted, in which four different situations of either slander, an oral defamation, or libel, a written defamation, were presented. Respondents were asked to rate the degree of perceived defamatoriness of an imaginary speaker"s or author"s statement in each situation and to provide their own response that they thought to be appropriate. The data are analyzed in terms of strategies and response types to test a set of hypotheses. It turns out that the variables of (non)truthfulness of defamatory statements and (non)closeness in relationships between speaker and victim can affect the victim"s perception and subsequent reaction and that there is a limited correlation between the ratings of defamatory perception and the response types chosen. Based on the findings further issues related to defamation are discussed.
This paper is an attempt to bring a metapragmatic perspective in the study of repetition of synonymous morphemes of mixed origins (RSMO, hereafter). RSMO has been traditionally treated as involving redundancy or markedness, because it contains the excess of informative contents. However, this study examines the so-called redundancy of RSMO and shows that the repeated element does not give rise to redundancy of information. If RSMO is basically a redundant phenomenon, then its use should be able to result in pragmatic implicature like Q-implicature in Grice (1975) and M-implicature in the sense of Levinson (2000). However, the present study points out that no such implicature will arise and therefore, words of RSMO may not be viewed simply as redundant or marked forms that are deviant from a standard usage of repetition. Rather, RSMO is widely used to maintain the interpersonal relationship between the interlocutors by revealing the speaker's or author's intention of taking into account the hearer's or reader's comprehension to the extent that it contributes to an optimal management of conversational interaction. Thus, RSMO has to be regarded as an important metapragmatic awareness indicator that helps enhance the efficiency of communication.
'스콜라' 이용 시 소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우, 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 7시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.
2014년 8월 미국 퍼거슨시에 일어난 마이클 브라운 피격 사건은 그 사건을 보는 관점에 따라 다양한 분노 반응을 유발했다. 같은 사건에 대해서도 서로 다른 관점에서 첨예하게 대립하는 상반된 해석이 가능하다는 것은 여러 인종이 모여 사는 미국 사회의 다양성을 반영하는 것이기도 하지만 다른 한편으로는 인종 문제가 미국 사회의 근간을 흔들고 통합을 저해할 수 있는 아킬레스의 건임을 보여준다. 따라서 공권 력의 정당한 사용과 인종차별적 법집행 여부를 둘러싼 여러 관점과 이런 상이한 관점 에서 비롯된 분노 발화의 특성을 이해하는 것이 중요하다. 본 연구에서는 해묵은 인종 갈등을 재점화한 계기가 된 백인 경찰 대런 윌슨에 의한 흑인 청년 마이클 브라운의 피격 사건 보도를 둘러싼 네티즌들의 분노 반응 발화를 조사하고, 백인 경찰 옹호 관점과 흑인 청년 옹호 관점 및 중립적 관점이라는 세 가지 서로 다른 관점에서 표현된 발화의 분노 충동성과 집중성 및 명시성을 분석한다. 특히 이런 분노 발화의 질적 특성을 객관적으로 계량화할 수 있는 방법을 제시하고 그런 계량적 분석 결과에 대한 함의를 살펴본다. This paper explores pragma-linguistic aspects of angry responses to the shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, by Darren Wilson, a white police officer, in Ferguson, a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri, on August 9, 2014. The incident immediately prompted a storm of heated debates on the Internet and a number of angry threads were posted. This study identifies three different perspectives from which those threads were written, viz. the perspective that advocated Darren Wilson’s shooting (Perspective A), the perspective that advocated Michael Brown’s behavior on the day (Perspective B), and the perspective that is neutral between the white police officer and the black teenager (Perspective C). A total of 647 tokens of angry expressions are analyzed in terms of their anger realization strategies and the three key traits of anger expressions — compulsivity, convergence, and explicitness. A set of evaluation formula to measure the three traits are proposed and the findings are discussed.
Ellipsis has been one of the best studied and most intriguing subjects in syntax and semantics over the last forty years since Ross's seminal 1969 article. Although it has drawn keen and immense attention, it has remained largely unanswered why elliptical utterances are so frequently used in our daily conversation. Instead, the main focus of the ellipsis studies has been on questions such as how ellipsis is resolved, whether there is syntactic structure internal to the ellipsis site, and whether the identity requirement on ellipsis is syntactic or semantic. Few attempts have been made to explicate the reasons why ellipsis is prevalent. This study is an attempt to fill that gap. We explore what pragmatic and metapragmatic roles elliptical utterances can play and point out that they have important metapragmatic functions. Whether it is intrasentential or not, ellipsis can serve the fundamental communicative goals of maintaining a smooth conversation and carrying out risk management. Thus this study sheds new light on one of the most central and long-overdue questions in the study of ellipsis, and has important implications for understanding the relations between syntax and pragmatics.
This paper is an attempt to explore the deletion of accusative Case-markers in Korean from the perspective of neo-Gricean pragmatics. A variety of analyses have been made as to the deletion of accusative Case markers. For example, Enc (199) provided a semantic account of accusative Case-marking in Turkish, using the notion of specificity. In a similar vein, D. Kim (1993) proposed an analysis of accusative Case deletion in Korean based on the distinction between specificity and nonspecificity. Other approaches include D. Lee (2002) on Case-marking in spoken Japanese discourses and the analysis of Korean accusative Case by Ko (2000), where the concept of focus plays a crucial role. The present study demonstrates that all of these analyses of accusative Case deletion are not sufficient enough to account for every aspect of the deletion, although they are valid to some extent for a restricted set of data. As a more generalized alternative, a pragmatic account is proposed that utilizes Levinson's principles of pragmatic inferences. Finally, the various pragmatic and metapragmatic functions that the marked forms of NPs without accusative case markers are discussed.
The purpose of this study is to examine the pragma-linguistic aspects of miscommunication and misunderstandings that occur in conversations between married couples in Korea. An attention is paid to six different types of conversations, depending on the interlocutors’ intentional cooperation and rapport-management orientation. A special focus is laid not just on the concern for their ‘face’ but also on their perception of sociality rights ? a key notion proposed by Spencer -Oatey (2000, 2005) in accounting for (dis)harmony and (un) smoothness in verbal communication. We apply these theoretical notions and principles to a set of real, natural conversation data that represent each type of marital conversations. Finally, the results of our analysis are discussed in comparison with Jeon’s (2009, 2011) analyses of speech acts of refusals and disagreement.
Since it was first introduced to the linguistic pragmatics in the early 1970s, the notion of metapragmatics has been employed in one way or another in the description of some pragmatic phenomena such as indexicality and reported speech. However, virtually no attempts have been made to make use of this independently motivated notion in the discussion of pragmatic implicatures. This study is an attempt to build a new metapragmatic perspective in the study of pragmatic inferences. To this end, we begin with characterizing metapragmatic implicature in comparison with pragmatic implicature, and then investigate the role of metapragmatics in pragmatic reasoning in the neo-Gricean framework. In particular, it is shown that the order of the incrementation of the context, or the projection principle proposed by Levinson (2000) is defective since it does not take into account the presence of metapragmatic implicature. Moreover, it is pointed out that some unexpected failures of implicature on a pragmatic level is due to the presence of metapragmatic implicature involved in the utterance. Thus, this study shows that the interaction of metapragmatics and pragmatics provides a new insight into how implicatures are processed or blocked without positing any extra devices to deal with apparent counterexamples or exceptions to the neo-Gricean pragmatics.
Although many studies have explored speaker meaning, most of them have focused on 'what is implicated' and relatively little attention has been paid to 'what is said'. The meaning of ‘what is said’ is usually considered unequivocally explicit and has not been much investigated. This paper aims to show that the explicit meaning of utterance ranges further than Grice's (1975) notion of 'what is said'. To do this we present that as part of speaker meaning a propositional content of 'what is said' can be constructed through pragmatic inference. In particular, we attempt to develop Carston's (2000) idea that deriving the explicit content of utterance ("explicature") involves pragmatic processes such as free enrichment, saturation and ad hoc concept construction as well as reference assignment and disambiguation. Supporting evidence for this proposal is found in the determination of what is said in ordinary public advertisements in Korean. It is observed that it often occurs in some public advertisements that the speaker imposes such tasks upon listeners intentionally in order to both effectively convey the implicated content (implicature) and engage listeners' cognitive environments. We account for the use of these unspoken parts by proposing that some gap between what is said and implicature can be bridged by the conception of explicature. This study illustrates that the understanding of what is said is closely tied to the listener's search for optimal relevance.