Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
Journal of Universal Language
Sejong University Language Research Institue

J. Univers. Lang. 2009; 10(2):35-55

pISSN: 1598-6381

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2009.10.2.35

Article

Cultural Translation of Debate in Korean

Jee-won Hahn1
1Kyung Hee University

Copyright ⓒ 2016, Sejong University Language Research Institue. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Jan 01, 2017

Abstract

Transformational processes of borrowed speech activities are addressed since the topic of debate. Debate is rooted in Western political discourse, and is now situated in Korean discourse. This study examines debate in order to understand the concept and rules of speaking which govern that activity. Considering the popularity of debate in Korean, particularly in educational domains, it seems only natural to see how Korean language/culture compares with and has modified a Western-oriented activity. The motivation of this current study is as a response to a prior lack of effort to look at language from a broader context. This study attempts to apply the ethnography of communication to debate proposed by Hymes (1964; 1972; 1974). From the ethnographic approach to communication, speaking is inseparable from the context in which it takes place. The need to examine contextual factors is taken into consideration, and a set of components are identified to study language in use (i.e. setting, participants, keys, and norms). In this view, debate is analyzed as a cultural product. Findings reveal certain diverse features of ‘Koreanized’ debate. The language of Korean debate in expressing disagreement tends to be indirect. While agreement is directly expressed, disagreement is likely to be realized by means of disarmers and prefacing statements. The expression of oppositional opinion also becomes longer.

Keywords: debate; Korean speech acts; ethnography of communication; cultural borrowing; educational setting

REFERENCES

1.

Agyekum, K. 2008. The Pragmatics of Akan Greetings. Discourse studies 10.4, 493-516.

2.

Aijmer, K. 1996. Conversational Routines in English. London& New York: Longman.

3.

Blum-Kulka, S. et al. 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

4.

Brown, P. et al. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5.

Chung, M. 2008. Toui toron swuep pangpep [Teaching Discussion and Debates]. Seoul: Kyoyukkwahaksa.

6.

Chung, W. 2006. Yensel-kwa toron-ul thonghay pon kuntay kyemongki-uy swusahak [Rhetoric of Modern era Through Public Speech and Debates]. Kocen Munhakyenkwu 30, 409-446.

7.

Duff, A. 1995. An Ethnography of Communication in Immersion Classrooms in Hungary. TESOL Quarterly 29.3, 505-537.

8.

Duranti, A. 1992. Language in Context and Language as Context: the Samoan Respect Vocabulary. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context 77-99. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

9.

Edmondson, J. 1981. On Saying You're Sorry. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routines: Explorations in Standardized Com- munication Situations and Prepatterned Speech 273-288. The Hague& NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.

10.

Farrow, S. 2006. Debating and Its Discontents. Language and Communication 26.2, 117-128.

11.

Fong, M. 2000. 'Luck Talk' in Celebrating the Chinese New Year. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 219-237.

12.

Howe, M. 2005. An Introduction to English Language Debate in Asia. Seoul: Ewha Womans University Press.

13.

Hymes, D. 1964. Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communi-cation. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.), The Ethnography of Communication, 1-34. Washington D.C.: American Anthropo- logist.

14.

Hymes, Dell. 1972. Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication 35-71. New York: Holt.

15.

Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

16.

Im, K. 2001. TV torn-eyse palenkwen cwuko ppayaski-uy tamwha pwunsek [Taking the Floor in TV Debates]. Tamwhawa Inci 8.2, 181-203.

17.

Kang, T, at et. 2001. Toron-uy pangpep [Ways of Debating]. Seoul: Kemyunikheyishenpwuksu.

18.

Kim, P. 2007. Toron-uy pangpep [Ways of Debating]. Seoul: Kukhakcaryowon.

19.

Kim, S. 2007. Touy nunglyenk sinchang-ul wihan touy kyoyuk-uy nayyong yenkwu [Content Analysis of Debating Education for Improving Eebating Competence]. Sahoyenehak 15.2, 31-55.

20.

Kim, Y. 2007. Taking Turns in Class Discussions in English. Foreign Languages Education 14.4, 49-72.

21.

Lee, C. 2006. Kyemongkwa seltuk-uy uysa sothong pangsik-uyroseuy toron-kwa toron sosel [Debating as a Communication of Persuasion and Debate Novels]. Hankwukmu-whakchongse 44, 219-243.

22.

Lee, C. 2008. Toron-uy cenlyak [Strategies of Debating]. Seoul: Mwunhakkwa cisengsa.

23.

Lee, D-U. 2000. Toron-uy sangho sahoy enehakcek yenku [An Interactional Sociolinguistic of Debating]. Doctoral dissertation. Seoul National University.

24.

Lee, D-U. 2003. Rethinking Goffman's Theory and an Interact-tional Sociolinguistic Analysis of Debate. Enehak 37, 197-221.

25.

Lee, D-W. 2008. Hankwuk tayhaksayng-uy tibeyithu suthailey tayhan nayyongpwunsek [Content Analysis of Debating style Among Korea College Students]. Khemyunikheyishyenhakyenkwu 16.1, 79-101.

26.

Maduell, M. 1994. On Stage Calls: An Ethnolinguistic Analysis of Spoken Language in Professional Flamenco Performance. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Hawaii at Manoa.

27.

Park, C. 2004. Hankwuk-uy toron mwunhwa-wa toron kyoyuk [Debating Culture and Debating Education in Korean]. Kwuke- kyoyukhak Yonkwu 19, 289-318.

28.

Park, Y. 2002. TV sayngpangsong toron taywha-eyseuy taywha cenkyak yenkwu [Analysis of Conversational Strategies in Live TV Debating]. Sahoyenehak 10.1, 169-196.

29.

Saville-Troike, M. 1989. The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Blackwell.

30.

Sather, Trevor. 1999. Pros and Cons: A Debater's Handbook (18th edition). London and New York: Routledge.

31.

Searle, R. 1976. The Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society 5, 1-24.

32.

Shin, J. 2005. Yensel toron-ilanun ceyto-uy yuip-kwa kamka-uy pyenhwa [Adoption of Public Speech and Debates and Their Influences]. Hankuk Kuntaymwunhakyenku 6.1, 9-41.

33.

Song, K. 1993. An Interactional Sociolinguistic Analysis of Argument Strategies in Korean Conversational Discourse: Negotiating Disagreement and Conflict. Ph. D Dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

34.

Tusda, A. 1984. Sales Talk in Japan and the United States: An Ethnographic Analysis of Contrastive Speech Events. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.