초록 열기/닫기 버튼
Brown and Levinson (1987) acknowledge the possibility ofdifferent cultural weight given to the parameters of social distance,status and degree of imposition and difference in politeness styles. Subsequent studies on politeness research have followed Brown andLevinson’s politeness formula. The postmodern theorists’ (Watts &Locher) approaches has made great contributions to the functionalaspects of politeness studies since they regard politeness forms asflexible, negotiable and functional in local discourse contexts. Especially, Locher (2004) claims that “status is a complex, negotiablevariable and power is regarded as relational, dynamic and contestable.”Locher’s claim that what is appropriate and normal is not static, but adynamic and changeable entity that is dependent heavily on the‘speech event' at hand, is a revolutionary view that other researchershave not made. Nevertheless, her pragmatic approach to politeness stillneeds to acknowledge that the interactional nature of politeness focuseson variability derived from cultural values. The findings of this study extend far beyond the previous politenessresearch. First, Korean relational work requires Confucian culturalknowledge and is a crucial element in the construction of institutionalidentity. Second, Korean politeness should be understood from a culturespecificframework by using natural language data since Koreanspeakers employ culturally shared knowledge in order to better negotiatetheir discursive stance on an interactional level.
