Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 21

구자은. 2005. 화용론과 담화. 울산: UUP.

3부 29-39/ 53-66/ 80-83/ 수업>


III. Why for mal links(=cohesive devices) ar e not enough

3.1 Intr oduction

It is important to realize that although formal links reinforce the unity of discourse, they
cannot, on their own, create it. The sentences in Task 41), Chapter II are packed with
cohesive devices, but it would be a mistake to suppose that it is this, and nothing else,
which creates the unity between them. We can see this clearly if we replace the third
sentence with another, so that the sequence reads:

A: It's a mystery to me, how the conjuror sawed that woman in half.
B: Well, Jane was the woman he did it to. So presumably she must be Japanese.

Here, there are also formal links (so, she, etc.) but it is not clear how the sequence
makes sense. Of course, like the sentences about the knight, the dragon, and the
pineapple, they might form part of a discourse, and if we stretch our imaginations we
could come up with a situation in which they do; but this2) will not be by virtue of
the words so and she, but because of some other information about context.3)

Formal links between sentences, then, are not enough to account for our feeling that a
stretch of language is discourse. They are neither necessary nor sufficient, and in brief
spoken exchanges, it is quite common to encounter sequences of sentences that are
almost entirely bare of4) them.

▶ Task 1

Here are four possible answers to the sentence: ‘The window is open.'
1. Don't worry.
2. My job's stacking boxes, sir.
3. Homes! It was the gardener.

For each exchange, supply a context in which it would make sense. Notice that
there are no formal links in any of the exchanges, but they are nevertheless easy to

1) Task 5: Identify and categorize all the formal links which connect the three sentences in the following invented
dialogue: A: It's a mystery to me, how the conjuror sawed that woman in half.
B: Well, Jane was the woman he did it to. So presumably she must know.
2) this: 위의 예로 제시된 담화가 의미가 통하고, 일관성 있는 것
3) 상기 담화가 일관성을 갖기 위해서는 “The conjuror tended to saw Japanese women in half."가 전제되는
맥락이어야 한다. 아마도 진주만(Pearl Harbor) 공격시 그의 아들이 전사했을 지도 모르겠다.
4) be bare/devoid/empty (of): i) …이 없는, 빈, 텅 빈, 《of》 (=be free from) ii) 발가벗은(naked)

- 1 -
understand. Each one could form a complete discourse.

3.2 Language functions

The examples in Task 1 are invented; but one does not have to look far to find such
exchanges in real life. An elderly neighbour came to my door one day and said:
‘Sorry, love. I saw you were home. There's a cat stuck under the gate at number 67.'
I had no trouble in interpreting this, nor did I find the sequence strange, despite the
fact that there are no overt formal links of the kind discussed in 2. Clearly, if we are
to explain such interpretation we will need more than our list of cohesive devices.

One way of doing this is to look behind the literal, formal meaning of what is said or
written, and to consider what the sender of a message intends to achieve with it, to try
to understand its function. People are interpreting other people's language--and expecting
other people to interpret their own---in this way5) all the time, apparently with a
surprising degree of accuracy. In the above example, the old woman at the door
intended to establish contact, apologize for disturbing me, explain why she had come to
my house instead of another, and ask for assistance in freeing the cat. That I correctly
interpreted this is strongly suggested by the fact that she was not surprised by my
answer--which was to stop what I was doing, go out with her, and set about trying to
free the cat.

If I had simply interpreted her remarks as having the function of imparting information
and replied: ‘Oh, how interesting. Thanks for telling me', she would, quite justifiably,
have been very offended.6) But how could she be so certain that her intention would be
transparent to me, and how did I understand her meaning so accurately? What kind of
rules enable people to infer the function of what is said from its literal, formal

In order to discover how such inferences are made, we will need firstly to examine the
range of possible functions of language, and secondly to try to understand how people
correctly interpret them. Understanding this connection between the form and the
function of language will help us to explain how stretches of language, like the request
for help with the cat, can be coherent without being cohesive.

5) in this way: 말해지거나 쓰여진 바의 자구적(literal), 형식적(formal) 의미를 보고, 그 기능을 이해함으로써
6) offend: 성나게 하다, …의 감정을 상하게 하다, e.g. I am offended by[at] his blunt speech. 나는 그의
퉁명스러운 말에 기분이 상한다.
7) 교실에서 선생님이 “I see someone chewing gum." 버스에서 노인이 ”아이구, 허리야" 공원에서 여자친구가
남자친구에게 ”아이 추워“ 라고 말하는 발화와 그 반응 등을 한번 생각해 보시오.

- 2 -
From now on, we shall use the term utterance for a unit of language used by
somebody in context to do something -- to communicate -- and reserve sentence for
grammatically complete units regarded purely formally, in isolation from their context
and their function.

3.3 The classification of macr o-functions

Specialists in linguistics sometimes claim that if non-specialists are asked what the
function of language is, they will reply that it is ‘to send information' or 'to tell other
people your thoughts.' People are not as simplistic as this; even a moment's reflection
leads to the conclusion that language has many more functions. Nevertheless it is true,
in the adult and public world at least, that this function which language has of
transmitting information, its referential function,8) is considered the most important. To
abuse it, by sending false information, is usually regarded as wrong, and can, in certain
circumstances, incur9) the punishment of imprisonment or a fine.

Yet it is by no means the only, or the first, function of language in human life. In the
world of the infant and parent, the referential function of language often takes a
subordinate role to others. There is little the four-year-old child can tell his or her
parents that they do not know already, for they share the child's world almost entirely.
The same is true in other intimate relationships. Some conversations of couples, whether
affectionate or belligerent, 10) have scant informational content. And even in the wider
social world of adult intercourse, language clearly has many more functions than simply
sending information.

There have been many, sometimes conflicting, attempts to classify the main functions of
language (macro-functions). One of the clearest and most influential was formulated by
the linguist Roman Jakobson (1960), and further developed by Dell Hymes (1962). (The
terms we shall use here are based on both accounts, without exactly following either.)
The scheme proceeds by first identifying the elements of communication as follows:

1. The addresser : the person who originates the message. This is usually the same as
the person who is sending the message, but not always, as in the case of messengers,
spokespeople, and town criers11)

8) referential function: ‘정보전달 기능’으로서 앞에 나오는 this function과 동격(apposition)의 관계에 있음

referential: i) 지시의 ii) 참고용의 여기서는 “참고가 되도록 정보를 전달하는”이라는 의미로 해석하여, 정보
전달 기능으로 칭한다. cf. directive function: ‘지시기능’으로 이에는 질문(questions), 요청(requests), 충고
(advices), 탄원(pleas), 기원(prayers), 명령(orders) 등의 하위기능/소기능을 포함한다.
9) incur: vt. (incurred; incur·ring) <분노·비난·위험을> 초래하다 e.g. His lie incurred our displeasure.
그의 거짓말은 우리의 분노를 샀다.
10) belligerent: 호전적인(warlike), 교전 중인 cf. the belligerent powers: 교전국

- 3 -
2. The addressee: the person to whom the message is addressed. This is usually the
person who receives the message, but not necessarily so, as in the case of intercepted
letters, bugged12) telephone calls, and eavesdropping13)
3. The Channel: the medium through which the message travels: sound waves, marks on
paper, telephone wires, word processor screens, beacon (fire),14) a variety of signals,
4. The message form: the particular grammatical and lexical choices of the message.
5. The topic: the information carried in the message.
6. The code: the language or dialect, for example, Swedish, Yorkshire English, Japanese.
7. The setting: the social or physical context.

Macro-function are then established, each focusing attention upon one element:
1. The emotive function: communicating the inner states and emotions of the addresser
(‘Oh no!', ‘Fantastic', ‘Ugh!', ‘I feel thirsty', ‘You make me happy when skies are
gray' and swear15) words used as exclamations).
2. The directive function: seeking to affect the behaviour of the addressee (‘Please help
me!', ‘Shut up!', ‘I'm warning you!', ‘I pray to God to bless my homeland forever
with independence and freedom').
3. The phatic16) function: opening the channel or checking that it(=channel) is working,
either for social reasons (‘Hello'. ‘Lovely weather', ‘Do you come here often?'), or for
practical ones (‘Can you hear me?', ‘Are you still there?', ‘Can you see the blackboard
from the back of the room?', 'Can you read my writing?').
4. The poetic or rhetoric function:17) in which the particular sentence form chosen is
the essence of the message. ( The advertising slogan BEANZ MEANS HEINZ would
lose its point if it were paraphrased as ‘If you are buying beans, you will naturally buy
Heinz.'). “국민도 속았고 나도 속았다 살아서 돌아오라 다른 가능도 可함
, .” “ .”< >
5. The referential function: carrying information in the message
6. The metalinguistic18) function: focusing attention upon the code itself, to clarify it or

11) town crier: 마을을 돌며 소식을 전하는 직원 e.g. In former times, a town crier was a man whose
job was to walk through the streets of a town shouting out news and official announcements.
12) bug: n. 곤충, 벌레(insect) v. 도청장치를 하다(plant a bug) e.g. If someone bugs a place, they hide
tiny microphones in it which transmit what people are saying.
13) eavesdrop: 도청하다, 몰래 듣다 e.g. If you eavesdrop on someone, you listen secretly to what they
are saying.
14) beacon (fire): 봉화 beacon mound: 봉화대
15) swear: i)맹세하다 ii) 욕하다 e.g. Don't swear in front of children. cf. swear word~exclamations: 감
탄조로 쓰이는 욕설이나 악담 (예: 제기랄!)
16) phatic: 상호교호적인 (=교제나 사교를 원활하게 하기 위해 사용하는 인사말 등을 일컬음)
17) poetic function: ‘시적기능’으로 일명 rhetoric function(수사적 기능)이라고도 한다
18) metalinguistic: 상위 언어적인(=언어를 언어로 설명하는 기능을 말한다. 예를 들어 영어문법을 우리말로 설
명할 경우, 영어는 대상언어(target language)가 되고, 우리말은 상위언어(metalanguage)가 된다.

- 4 -
renegotiate it (‘What does this word here mean?', ‘This bone is known as the "femur"
',19) ‘"will" and "shall" mean the same thing nowadays'). This book has a largely
metalinguistic function.
7. The contextual function: creating a particular kind of communication in a special
context (‘Right, let's start the lecture', ’It's just a game').

▶ Task 2

What do you consider to be the most likely functions of the following?

1. Dear Sir or Madam … 2. Can you stand on one leg?
3. Workers of the World, Unite! 4. You make me sick.
5. What do you mean by this? 6. I'll be damned!

Is it possible to assign one function to each? How might the function of each
utterance vary according to context?

3.4 Functional development

It is interesting to speculate, if one accepts this classification, on the evolution of

functions in each human individual. The crying baby is being expressive or emotive,
although her cries are not really language at all, but instinctive reactions to the
environment. When she realizes that by controlling these cries, and producing them at
will rather than automatically, she can influence the behaviour of her parents, she has
progressed to the directive function. Phatic communication also begins very early.
Chuckling, gurgling20), babbling21), often have no function but to say: ‘Here I am, and
so are you' (Halliday 1975:37-41). The poetic or rhetoric function is also apparent at an
early stage: when young children latch on to22) a phrase and repeat it endlessly, without
conveying any information. The referential function gains its prominence only at a later
stage, and the metalinguistic function also comes later; these are the functions on which
a considerable amount of attention is lavished23) at school.

Surprisingly, considering this course of development, a good deal of foreign language

teaching begins with the metalinguistic function, by explicitly stating the rules of

19) femur: 대퇴골(넓적다리뼈: the large bone in the upper part of one's leg)
20) gurgle: i) 꼴꼴[콸콸] 흘러나오다, cf. water gurgling from a bottle: 병에서 콸콸 흘러나오는 물 ii) <사
람이> 목을 꿀꺽거리다 《기쁠 때 등》 If a baby gurgles, it makes this kind of sound in its throat.
21) babble: 재잘거리다(=make a sound like water moving over stones) n. 재잘거림
22) latch on to: 제 것으로 하다, 꿰차다, 달라붙다 (stick to=adhere to=cling to, use often)
23) lavish: 아낌없이[후하게] 주다 e.g. Teresa tended to lavish lots of love on the underprivileged.

- 5 -
3.5 Micr o-functions and functional language teaching

If we accept Jakobson's and Hymes', or any similar, categorization of language into a

small number of macro-functions, we might then go on to subdivide each function and
specify more delicate categories, or micro-functions. A breakdown of the directive
function, for example, might look something like Figure 1.

(Macro-functions) questions (Micro-functions)

requests for action24)
requests for information25)
directive function requests
requests for help26)
requests for sympathy
figure 1

Figure 1 follows through only one function in each column, but one might easily
imagine a similar division and re-division of any of the other six macro-functions, or of
any of the resulting sub-categories. The result would be a diagram which becomes ever
more precise and explicit as it moves from left to right, with a long list of fairly
narrowly defined functions on the right-hand side. The resulting list of function is of the
kind used as the basis of functional language courses. Functional language courses set
out31) to list the purposes or functions for which students might wish to use language,
and then to teach them how to do so.

3.6 Functional analysis and coher ence

In chapter 1 we set ourselves the problem of accounting for intuitions that some
stretches of language are coherent and others are not. In chapter 2 we examined the
role of cohesive devices in creating coherence, but we also looked at their limitations.

24) 음주운전 경찰이 “Can you stand on one leg?"라고 했을 때

25) 의사가 관절염 환자에게 전화로 “Cn you stand on one leg?"라고 했을 때
26) 본서의 저자인 Oxford교수 Cook에게 이웃집 노부인이 “Sorry, love. I saw you were home. There's a
cat stuck under the gate."라고 했을 때
27) In the famous plea for mercy in the Merchant of Venice Portia says:
The quality of mercy is not strain'd
It droppeth as a gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath; it is twice bless'd;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes (plea: 탄원)
28) "I pray to God for blessing my homeland forever."라는 문장을 생각할 수 있다. (prayer: 기도, 기원)
29) 충고: I advise him to stop smoking
30) 경고: He spends his spare time visiting schools to warn pupils off drugs.
31) set out: 출발하다, 시작하다(begin, start)

- 6 -
The idea of language function can go a long way towards32) solving this problem of
what binds utterances together as discourse in the absence of formal links. If we can
ascertain the function of utterances, we will be able to perceive a unity of a different
kind. Thus we can see that the sentence ‘The window is open' can have many different
functions, depending on who says, to whom, and in what situation. Said by a husband
to a wife in the middle of the night it might function as an expression of worry or
anxiety. Said by a head teacher to a pupil it might well function as a request for
closing the window. Said by Sherlock Holmes to Dr Watson at the scene of a murder
it might function as a statement (of the fact). The same sentence is now seen to do
different things, and according to what it is doing, the answer is more or less suitable:

The window is open. → Don't worry.

(Expression of anxiety) → (Reassurance)
There may be some kind of sequencing to functions,33) some order in the way they
→ →
follow another: request refusal or accept; plea offer or reject, and so on. This is not
only the case when a discourse is constructed by two people interacting face to face; it
may also hold within the words of a single speaker. My neighbour's utterances may
follow more coherently if we construe34) them thus:

Sorry, love. I saw you were home. There's a cat stuck under the gate...
(Apology) (Explanation) (Request)

There are problems with this procedure, for not all functions can be so neatly labelled,
nor is there always such a neat correspondence between a single utterance and a single
function. As we have seen in Task 2, it is quite usual for an utterance to perform more
than one function at once. Nor have we really explained our feeling for these
sequences: why an order is more appropriately followed by a refusal than by a
reassurance, for example. Nevertheless, the important principle has been established, that
meaning varies with context. Formally, out of context, a sentence has a kind of
time-free and place-free meaning. Used as an utterance in context it may have many
meanings, which, although they are connected to this context-free sentence meaning, may

32) go a long way toward(s): 기여하다(make some contribution to), 도움이 된다(be of great help/aid)
e.g. A strong, effective international court would go a long way toward establishing justice and
protecting victims of war and repression.
33) 문(文)에도 순서가 있듯이 담화의 기능에도 순서가 있다. 예1: May I borrow your dictionary? --Here
you are. --Thank you. --You're welcome. (O) You have lovely eyes. --Thank you. -- You're
welcome. (x) 예2: (상황) I was on sentry duty. (반응요청상황) I saw the enemy approaching. (반응) I
opened fire. (평가) I beat off the attack. 예3: 길 물을 때와 연구실 찾아 왔을 때의 self-introduction 유무
34) construe: 해석하다, …의 뜻으로 파악하다, 번역하다(interpret) e.g. He may construe the approach as
a hostile act.

- 7 -
be extremely varied.

These two types of meaning are distinguished by the terms semantic meaning (the fixed
context-free meaning) and pragmatic meaning (the meaning which the words take on in
a particular context, between particular people). The function of an utterance must be
established pragmatically or in context.

We are left, however, with two unanswered questions about the divergence35) of function
and form, of semantics and pragmatics: How? and Why? If the meaning of an utterance
does not wholly reside in the semantic meaning, and if people can mean quite different
things or functions with the same words, how do human beings interpret -- usually quite
accurately -- what is meant from what is said? And why does this divergence of
function and form exist at all? Why do people not just speak directly and say what
they mean? For an answer we will need to look elsewhere: at the theories of
conversational principles and speech acts, ideas which, as their names suggest, were

developed with spoken language in mind, but are as applicable to written discourse as
to spoken.36)

It seems that examining these theories from pragmatics will involve us in a substantial
digression37) from our main concern: which is to account for our intuitions of coherence.
Yet these theories provide essential insight into the nature of coherence. They (=the
theory of conversational principles + speech act theory) are essential tools for discourse
analysis and thus for the teacher and learner.

3.7 Conver sational pr inciples: co-oper ation

The idea that conversation proceeds according to a principle, known and applied by all
human beings, was first proposed in a limited form by the philosopher Paul Grice
(1975), who put forward what he described as the co-operative principle.38) According to
this principle, we interpret language on the assumption that its sender is obeying four
maxims.39) We assume he or she is intending to:
35) divergence: 분기, 일탈(逸脫), (의견 등의) 차이 e.g. A divergence is a difference between two or
more things, attitudes, or opinions.
36) 통사론에서 Deep Structure에 Transformation이 가해져, Surface Structure 가 나오듯이, 담화(분석)에도
기능으로 된 Deep Structure에 대화원칙과 화행론이 작용하여 Surface Strucure의 표현형태가 나온다. 음운론의
경우도 마찬가지이다. 심층구조 man/mæn/ → asalization(sound law)→ 표층구조 man[mæ̃n]
37) digression: 일탈, 탈선, 지엽으로 흐름 cf. to return from the digression: 본론으로 되돌아가서
38) 협력원칙은 꼭 필요한 만큼의 간단한 내용을(양의 격률), 진실하다고 믿는 대로(질의 격률), 전후관계에 맞도
록(관계성의 격률), 명료하게 말하라(방법의 격률)는 격률로 되어 있다.
참고: The grammar of a language consists of a core, the general principles of the grammar, and a
periphery, the more marked structures and parameters based on specific culture.
39) maxim: 격률(格律), 격언, 금언 e.g. A maxim is a rule for good or sensible behaviour, especially
one in the form of a saying.

- 8 -
- be brief (the maxim of quantity) ( 針小棒大)
- be true (the maxim of quality) ( 荒唐無稽)
- be relevant (the maxim of relevance) (東問西答)
- be clear (the maxim of manner) ( 要領不足)
Using this assumption, combined with general knowledge of the world, the receiver can
reason from the literal, semantic meaning of what is said to the pragmatic meaning --
and induce40) what the sender is intending to do with his or her words. For example: in
the case of my neighbour's utterance that

There's a cat stuck under the gate at number 67.

I started with the knowledge, from my experience of the world, that a cat is likely to
be very unhappy at being stuck under a gate; that a human, by virtue of greater
intelligence and manual dexterity, is likely to be able to free such a cat; that humans
generally like to alleviate41) the suffering of pets; and that old women in British society
have an--often misplaced--belief in the practical abilities of men. From the co-operative
principles, I also assumed that my neighbour was telling the truth (there was no
evidence that she was lying, hallucinating,42) or playing a practical joke). I also assumed
she was being relevant. If she had come and said, ‘There's a flower growing in the
garden at number 67', though this would also be true, it would be hard to see its
relevance. Taking all this into account, it is possible to explain how I interpreted this
utterance to function as a request for help in freeing the cat -- as having a pragmatic
meaning roughly paraphrasable as

Come and free the cat which is stuck under the gate at number 67.

When we talk about people following the co-operative principle, this does not mean that
they can consciously and explicitly formulate it to themselves. (If that were the case,
then Grice's theory would not have attracted the attention it has!) It means rather that
people act as though they know the principle just as they act as though they know the
rules of grammar unconsciously or implicitly -- though very few people can even begin
to formulate them consciously and explicitly, and nobody can formulate them completely.

In the case of the trapped cat, my neighbour was able to obey all four maxims at once,

40) induce: 추론해내다(infer), 귀납하다(opp. deduce) e.g. To induce a state or condition means to
cause it. e.g. Doctors said surgery could induce a heart attack.
41) alleviate: 완화하다, 경감하다(=ease, reduce, relieve, moderate, soothe, lessen, lighten, allay) e.g. If
you alleviate pain, suffering, or an unpleasant condition, you make it less intense or severe.
42) hallucinate: vt. 환각에 빠뜨리 vi. <사람이> 환각을 일으키다 e.g. If you hallucinate , you see things
that are not really there, either because you are ill or because you have taken a drug.

- 9 -
and on the assumption that all four were in operation, I was able to correctly interpret
what she said. But there are cases, when the demands of the four maxims do not fit so
happily together.
Ex1: Asked ‘What does your new job involve?' or ‘Did you like Algeria ?'43) it is

difficult to obey both the quality maxim and the quantity maxim.
Ex2: Brevity and truth often pull in opposite directions,44) and the short answer is often

simplified to the point of distortion45). ‘Water boils at 100 centigrade' is brief and
considered to be true, but is it as true -- if one can talk in degrees of truth -- as the
longer ‘Water boils at different temperatures depending on altitude’?
Ex3: Legal discourse and scientific discourse often sacrifice the maxim of quantity to

the maxim of quality.

Ex4: The maxims of quantity and manner are often at odds too. To be clear, one

sometimes needs to be long-winded.46)

3.8 Flouting the co-oper ative pr inciple

There are also times when meaning(=communicative effect=implicature) derives from

deliberate violations -- or ‘floutings'47) as Grice calls them -- of the co-operative
principle. In other words, the maxims of the cooperative principle allow us in everyday
communication to convey information that we have not explicitly said. Since, in a
conversation, we all mutually assume that everyone is adhering to these rules, a speaker
can communicate more (or additional) than what he or she has explicitly said. This
‘more' (or ‘additional') meaning is called implicature.48) For example, it is possible to
flout the quality maxim without lying or obfuscation49). If I tell you that

I've got millions of beer bottles in my cellar, or

43) 직업을 묻는 일이나, 영국에서 “Algeria" 국가에 대한 의견을 묻는 일은 좀 taboo시 되어 ”진실하다고 믿는

대로 말하라“라는 질의 격률(maxim of quality)을 준수하기가 어렵다. 제대로 답을 안하는 상황이 많으니, 양의
격률(maxim of quantity)도 지키기가 어려운 것이다.
44) often ~ directions: 상호 배치되는 경우가 자주 있다
45) distortion: 왜곡, 곡해 v. distort e.g. I think it would be a gross distortion of reality to say that
they were motivated by self-interest
46) long-winded: 장황한, wordy, verbose, diffuse, 지루한, prolix
47) flout: 위배하다, 모욕하다 e.g. If you flout something such as a law, an order, or an accepted way
of behaving, you deliberately do not obey it or follow it.
48) implicature: 함축(含蓄)이란 명시적으로(explicitly) 직접 말하고자 하는 바를 통해 간접적으로 전하고자 하
는 의미를 칭함
** 고정함축(固定含蓄: conventional implicature): 용어 자체에 함축된 의미
1) Bill invited Mary too. 2) 그는 서울로 되돌아 갔다. 3) He is rich but.......
3) 철수 조차도(Even Chulsoo) 그 문제를 풀 수 있었다. 중소 도시민의 서러움을 또한번 겪었다.
** 대화함축(對話含蓄: conversational implicature): 대화에서 어떤 표현을 통해 간접적으로 전하고자 하는 의미
를 칭함

- 10 -
My car breaks down every five minutes.

though neither is literally true, you will perceive such remarks as figures of speech,
hyperbole,50) a way of making my point more forcefully, rather than as lies. The same
holds for metaphor (‘Queen Victoria was made of iron') and irony and sarcasm51) (‘I
love it when you sing out of key all the time'), which depend upon the assumption that
they will be interpreted as deliberate floutings of the maxim to ‘Be true' rather than as
untruths intended to deceive.52) Note the importance, in all that has been said so far, of
the sender's correct estimation of the receiver's state of knowledge.

These figures of speech -- hyperbole, metaphor, irony, sarcasm -- work only if the
sender has enough knowledge to know that average house cellars will not hold millions
of bottles, women are not made of iron, and so on. When we speak to a child, or to
someone from another culture, we can easily estimate this knowledge incorrectly.
Children and foreign language learners sometimes take figures of speech literally (‘Was
Queen Victoria really made of iron, Mummy?', ‘You English people must have very big
houses'). Through our misjudgement of their knowledge, metaphor becomes a lie, and
we are left with the disturbing conclusion that the truth of a message is something
constructed by sender and receiver, and not only -- as is usually held to be the case --
a quality of the sender's intention or the message itself. (So far, it's about the floutings
of the quality maxim.)

Just as the quality maxim can be flouted for communicative effect or meaning, so53) can

과제 1. 격률 준수(格率 遵守)로 인한 對話含蓄은?

(1) 승무원이 들어 왔다. 철수는 화장실로 갔다. →

(2) A: Did you see Peter and John? B: I saw Peter. →
과제 2. 격률 위배(格率 違背)로 인한 對話含蓄은?
(1) I think I'll go for a W-A-L-K. (개 앞에서 철자식으로 발화) →
(2) 1월 달의 우리 집은 완전히 냉장고야. →
(3) Mr. Kim writes quite well, and attended all his classes regularly. →
(4) A: 야, 이번 주말 차 좀 빌려 주라. B: 아이구, 왜 이리 뒷골이 당기지. →
49) obfuscation: n. confusion vt. ob·fus·cate: 당황[난처]하게 하다 e.g. To obfuscate something
means to deliberately make it seem confusing and difficult to understand.
50) hyperbole: 과장(법)(=exaggeration)으로 비유(법)(figures of speech)의 일종
51) sarcasm: n. 냉소, 비꼬는[빈정대는] 말; 비꼼, 빈정거림(= 상대방을 해치려는 악의를 품은 점이 irony/반어
와 다름) irony(=sarcasm, mockery, ridicule, satire, cynicism, derision) e.g. The irony is that many
officials in Washington agree in private that their policy is inconsistent.
52) untruths intended to deceive: 속일려는 의도를 지닌 엉터리 사실들
53) (just) as ~ , so ~ : ~가 ~한 것처럼, ~도 ~하다. "의사전달시 어떤 효과나 의미를 전하기 위해 ‘질의 격
률’을 위배하듯이, 다른 세 격률도 마찬가지이다.(즉 위배를 함으로써 어떤 효과나 의미를 얻을 수 있다)

- 11 -
the other three. The quantity maxim is flouted in both directions: creating prolixity 54) if
we say too much and terseness if we are too brief. We often say more than we need,
perhaps to mark sense of occasion,55) or respect; and we often say less than we need,
perhaps to be rude, or blunt,56) or forthright.57) Sometimes we deliberately flout the
charge58) to be relevant: to signal embarrassment or a desire to change the subject.
Lastly, the maxim of manner is flouted either for humour, as in the case of puns and
doubles entendres,59) where rival meanings are deliberately tolerated, or in order to
establish solidarity between speakers and exclude an overhearer from the conversation.
Ex1: Lawyers and judges talk to each other in ways the prisoner in the dock60) cannot

always understand.
Ex2. Doctors diagnose patients for medical students in a language which they know the

patient will not follow (though there are also valid scientific reasons for this).
Ex3. Parents spell out61) words they do not want children to understand.

▶ TASK 3
Which maxims of the co-operative principle are being flouted in the following, and
why? and/or what's the implicature of each utterance?
1. I think I'll go for a W-A-L-K. (spelling the word letter by letter in front of a dog)
2. Is there anywhere I can powder my nose? (meaning: ‘I need a toilet')
3. This meal is delicious. (said by a guest who finds the food disgusting)
4. Child: I'm going to watch Air Force One now.
Mother: What was that Maths homework you said you had?

3.9. Conver sational pr inciples: politeness

The politeness principle, like the co-operative principle, may be formulated as a series
of maxims which people assume are being followed in the utterances of others. As with
the co-operative principle any flouting of these maxims will take on meaning or

54) prolixity[proulí;ksəti]: 장황, 지루함 a. prolix[próulí;ks] : 장황한(verbose=wordy) opp. terse: 간단

한(concise) n. terseness cf. concise[prolix] style: 간결한[장황한] 문체 n. verbosity= wordiness
55) sense of occasion: 사건의 심각성(=a feeling that an event/occasion is very serious or important)
56) blunt: 퉁명스러운, 무뚝뚝한 e.g. If you are blunt , you say exactly what you think without trying
to be polite.
57) forthright: 솔직한, 거리낌 없는(outspoken) n. forthrightness e.g. If you describe someone as
forthright , you admire them because they show clearly and strongly what they think and feel.
58) charge: duty or maxim (to follow or stick to)
59) doubles entendres[dɑ́:bl a:ntɑ̂ndrə]: 이중의 의미, 두 가지로 해석되는 말 e.g. Please stay a moment
for a matter of no moment. e.g. A: 경제가 어려우니 사건, 사고도 많은 것 같네. B: 그래, 요즈음 봄바람
조차도 아주 심한 것 같아.
60) dock: i) 선창, 부두, 독 ii) (형사법정의) 피고석 e.g. In a law court, the dock is where the person
accused of a crime stands or sits.
61) spell out: i) write spells separately ii) explain in detail

- 12 -
communicative effect, provided62) it is perceived for what it is.63) The linguist Robin
Lakoff (1973) has formulated these maxims as follows:

- Don't impose.64)
- Give options.65)
- Make your receiver feel good or comfortable.

These maxims of the politeness principle explain many of those frequent utterances in
which no new information is communicated. My neighbour said ‘I'm sorry. I saw you
were home' in an attempt to mitigate the imposition she was making.66) In English we
often give orders, and make requests and pleas (directives) in the form of elaborate
questions (‘Would you mind... Could you possibly... May I ask you to....') which give
the option of refusal; we apologize for imposing (‘I'm sorry to bother you'), and add in
praise to make our hearer feel good (‘You know much more about car engines than I

Clearly the politeness principle and the co-operative principle are often in conflict with
each other. Politeness and truth are often mutually incompatible (how do we answer the
friend who asks whether we like his new hairstyle, for example?) and so are politeness
and brevity.67) These conflicting demands of the two principles are something of which
people are consciously aware. In English, there is even a term for the surrender of truth
to politeness:68) ‘a white lie'.69)

Here is a transcript of an actual conversation. Can you identify which maxims of
co-operation and politeness are being obeyed or flouted?
<A new teacher has gone to his headteacher's office. The headteacher is extremely busy
preparing for a meeting. The young teacher speaks first.>

62) provided (that): if (=providing that)

63) for what it is: “as such”로 교체가 가능하며, “공손격률을 (의도적으로) 위배한 것이 그렇게 의도한 바대로
인식/지각 되어진다면”으로 해석이 가능하다
64) 이를 위해 명령이나 요청을 서술문으로 한다. 예: (사무실안 사장님) It's very hot. (버스안 할아버지) I
have a backache. (교실안 선생님) I see someone chewing gum.
65) 이를 위해 명령이나 요청, 탄원(plea) 등을 명령문(imperative sentence: "Take out the garbage!) 대신에
if 절이나 ‘정교한 의문문’(elaborate question)을 사용함, ‘정교한 의문문’이란 "Would you mind taking out the
garbage?" .... "Could you please ....?" "May I ask you to ...?" 등의 표현을 말한다.
66) mitigate the imposition she was making: 자신이 가한 강요(imposition)의 (심적) 부담을 완화하다
67) 이에 대한 예로, Quiet. Be quiet. Would you please be quiet? Your silence is cordially requested. 등
을 생각할 수 있다.
68) a term for the surrender of truth to politeness: “자신이 진실하다고 믿는대로 말하라”라는 진실의 격률
이 공손의 격률에 굴복한 것을 나타내는, 즉 양보한 것을 나타내는 용어
69) a white lie: 선의의 거짓말(an innocent harmless fib) cf. a black lie: 악의 있는(새빨간) 거짓말

- 13 -
A: excuse me are you busy.
B: no not at all.
A: I wondered if I could have a word with you.

3.10 The social adequacy of conver sational pr inciples70)

The co-operative and politeness principles, and the tension between them, reflect a dual
purpose in human intercourse: to cooperate efficiently together with other people, and to
create and maintain social relationships. There are situations, and there are types of
relationships, in which one of these purposes becomes dominant, and the other hardly
matters at all. In emergencies, when there is a need for immediate action, it is hardly
appropriate to follow the politeness principle. In a cinema, for example, although you
would no doubt forgive me if I shouted ‘Move!' at you if I had seen that a heavy
chandelier was falling on to your head, you might not be so tolerant if I used the

same formulation, requesting the same action, if you were simply obscuring my view of
the screen. In the latter case I would be more likely to give you options and a reason,
by saying: ‘Would you mind moving slightly? I can't see the screen very clearly.'

(It might be more preferable to omit this part) Brown and Levinson (1978), who have
studied politeness phenomena in widely diverse languages and cultures, suggest that their
origin is the same in all societies. All human beings, in order to enter into social
relationships with each other, must acknowledge the face of other people.71)

The specific nature of face varies from society to society.

Ex1. In some societies, parents have more rights to interfere in the domestic affairs of

adult children, for example, than in others.

Ex2. In some cultures, a bedroom is private and cannot be entered without permission,

while in others it can. Such differences cause notorious misunderstandings between

― ―
people from different cultures, who are usually but not always speakers of different
languages. Moreover, the precise way of indicating respect for face may be
culture-specific, and not subject to direct translation.
Ex3. In some cultures, for example, initial refusal of an offer may be merely polite, and

invite repetition; in others the opposite may be true. Clearly, such issues are vitally

70) The grammar of a language consists of a core, the general principles of the grammar, and a
periphery, the more marked structures and parameters based on specific culture.
71) 이 사실은 “We humans are both social creatures and individualists at one and the same time."의 명
제를 그대로 반영하고 있다. 즉 인간은 개인주의적 성향 때문에 혼자 있으려고 하는 independence 욕구가 있고,
사회적 동물이기 때문에 남과 어울리려고 하는 involvement 욕구가 있으며, 이 욕구의 균형을 이루어 상호 간에
체면손상 없이 공손원칙을 준수하려는 언어적인 노력의 하나로 다양한 간접적 표현들이 존재하는 것이다. e.g.
Take out the garbage. I wonder if you could take out the garbage. Could I ask you to take out the
garbage. Hey! the garbage.

- 14 -
important in the teaching and learning of foreign languages.
Though their realizations differ, the two, often conflicting, aims of communication to ―

co-operate and to maintain social relations are universal.

< 구자은. 2005. 화용론과 담화. 울산: UUP. 3부 98-112 수업>

3.11 Speech acts72)

Inferring the function of what is said by considering its form and context is an ability
which is essential for the creation and reception of coherent discourse and thus for
successful communication. However, the principles of politeness and co-operation are not,
on their own,73) enough to provide the explanation for this inference. To do this, we
also need knowledge of the physical and social world. We also need to make
assumptions about the knowledge of the people with whom we are interacting.

An approach which tries to formulate how such knowledge is brought into play is
speech act theory. This was first formulated by the philosopher John Austin in a series
of lectures which are now collected into a short book with the deceptively simple title
of How to do Things with Words(Austin 1962). These ideas were further developed by
another philosopher, John Searle(1969, 1975), who both added to them and presented
them more systematically. They have subsequently been developed by other thinkers, but
for clarity's sake we shall treat them as a single body of thought.

3.12 Declar ations74) and per for matives75)

Speech act theory begins with the observation that there is a class of highly ritualistic
utterances which carry no information about the world outside language at all,76) because
they refer only to themselves. Examples of such utterances are swearing an oath,77)

72) “인간은 말을 하면서 社會的인 어떤 行爲<act>를 하게 된다. 이는 곧 무수한 어휘를 8품사로, 수많은 문장을
5형식으로 구분하듯, 인간이 말하는 무수한 發話들을 일정한 수의 社會的 行爲(act) 즉, 機能(function)으로 분류
할 수 있음을 말한다. 여기에는 강의, 축하, 초대, 거절, 협박, 세례, 성혼선혼, 요청, 수락, 칭찬, 질문, 응답, 찬사
等이 있으며, 이처럼 表面의 形態를 통해 화자가 전하고자 하는 의도, 즉 基底의 機能을 화행(話行: speech act)
이라 하며, 이것이 곧 말과 글을 움직이는 實體가 된다.”(Cook, 1989: 35)
73) on their own: 스스로, 혼자 힘으로, 단독으로, cf. do something on one’s own
74) declarations(선언문): 선언문은 성혼선언, 사형언도, 세례, 배의 명명 등 고도로 의식화된(ritualistic) 수행문
(performative)을 말한다, 이에는 “I sentence you to death." "I pronounce you man and wife." "You are
under arrest." "I christen the ship Mary." "I baptize you Teresa." 등이 있다.
75) 수행문(performatives): 수행문은 표현의 의미가 그 표현이 수행하는 화행과 일치하는 발화(saying the
words and doing the action are the same thing)를 말하며, 이에는 “I promise to go there without fail.”
“I apologize to you for my mistakes.” “I order you to stand up.” “I request you to spit out your
chewing gum.” “I advise you to study hard.” 등이 있다.
76) 언어 이외의 세상사에 관한 정보는 없는 고도로 의식화된 발화로 ‘발화=발화 그 자체’를 가리키는 발화로,
선언문(declarations)을 지칭한다.
77) vow of marriage: In the name of God, do you solemnly vow that you'll love and cherish Miss 000

- 15 -
sentencing a criminal, opening a building, arresting a felon,78) naming a ship. They are
utterances in which saying the words and doing the action are the same thing: the
function is created by the form. Such utterances are labelled declarations. The utterance
‘I sentence you to death' performs the function of sentencing someone to death, and
this function is only performed (within certain legal systems) by this utterance.

However, the utterance only succeeds in having this function if certain external
conditions are fulfilled. The words must be uttered by someone with the necessary
authority, in a country in which there is a death penalty, to a person who has been
convicted of a particular crime; they must be spoken, not written, at the right time (at
the end of a trial) and in the right place (in court). For the words to79) function as a
death sentence, all these conditions must be fulfilled. The judge cannot say them to a
member of the family over breakfast, or in a country where the death penalty has been
abolished. It is no good80) my standing up in court and saying them, even to the right
person at the right time, because I am not a judge. It is no good the judge's writing
the criminal a note; the words must be said out loud. The conditions which must be
fulfilled are known as felicity conditions81).

▶ TASK 5
What are the felicity conditions for the following utterances to function?
1. I pronounce you Man and Wife.
2. I name this ship Aurora .
3. You are under arrest.
4. I absolve you from all your sins.

To what extent do such conditions vary from culture to culture?

In most lives, such highly ritualistic utterances as declarations are rare and very
dramatic. We may swear an oath only two or three times, and unless we are a judge,
or a princess, we are unlikely to sentence anyone or name any ships. Therefore, the
whole issue may seem very far removed from the analysis of general discourse and the
concerns of the typical language learner. Declarations, however, are only a special case
of a much commoner group of utterances, performatives. These are also utterances in
which saying is doing, and they too are only successful if certain felicity conditions are

by taking her to be your wife from this day forward until death do you part?
78) felon[félən]: 중죄인, 흉악범(a person who is guilty of committing a felony). felony: 중죄, 흉악범죄
79) For A to ~: A가 ~하기 위해서(in order for A to ~)
80) It is no good: 아무런 소용이 없다(=It is no use) e.g. It is no use[good] trying to excuse yourself.
: 아무리 핑계를 대어야 소용없다.
81) felicity condition: 적절요건 a. felicitous: 적절한, 알맞은(=proper, appropriate, suitable)

- 16 -
fulfilled, but, unlike declarations, their related verbs (promise, advise, apologize, request,
ask, vow, arrest, declare, etc.) are not always actually said. A good example is the act
of ordering someone to do something. To do this it is possible to use the verb ‘order'
and say, for example, ‘I order you to clean your boots', or to use the imperative form
‘Clean your boots', which is often associated with ordering. Yet, as with declarations,
such utterances will only be perceived as orders if certain conditions are in operation
and known to be in operation by both the sender and the receiver. The felicity
conditions for an order are:

1 The sender believes the action should be done. < 행위의 당위성 >
2 The receiver has the ability to do the action. < 수신자의 능력 >
3 The receiver has the obligation to do the action. < 수신자의 의무 >
4 The 발신자의 권한>
sender has the right to tell the receiver to do the action. <

If any one of these conditions is not fulfilled, the utterance will not function as an
order. If I order someone to clean their boots when I do not really believe that this
should be done, then my order is insincere, and flawed (condition 1). I can order

someone to clean their boots, but not to eat the Eiffel Tower they will not have the
ability (condition 2). My order will not succeed as an order unless the person I am
talking to is obliged to82) clean their boots (condition 3), and I have the right and the
power to make them do so (condition 4). I83) could not order you to clean your boots,
for example; though I might recommend it.

Conversely, we can see that if the conditions do hold, then any reference by the sender
to the action will be perceived as an order, even without an explicit form like ‘I order
you to …….' or the imperative. Let us imagine a very clear-cut situation in which the
power of the sender over the receiver is considerable: an army sergeant speaking to a
private just before parade. If this sergeant relates the action of cleaning boots to84) any
of the felicity conditions for orders, if he bellows85) (or even gently whispers) any of
the following:

I think your boots need cleaning, Jones! (condition 1)

I'm bloody sure you can get your boots cleaner than that, Jones! (condition 2)

82) oblige: …에게 강요하다(compel, force) be obliged to ~: ~하지 않을 수 없다(must, should) e.g. We
were obliged to obey him. e.g. The law obliges parents to send their children to school. v
noblesse oblige [no(u)blés o(u)blı́:ʒ]: 고귀한 신분에 따르는 도의상의 의무(a French expression used to
mean that people who belong to a high social class should be generous and behave with honour)
83) I: 저자를 가리키며, 독자 여러분의 상사나 선배가 아니기 때문에 ‘명령'을 할 수는 없다는 의미이다.
84) relate A to B: A를 B에 연관시키다
85) bellow: 소리치다, 고함지르다 (=shout, cry (out), scream, roar, yell, howl, shriek) e.g. I didn't ask
to be born!' she bellowed. e.g. If someone bellows, they shout angrily in a loud, deep voice.

- 17 -
You're supposed to come on to parade with clean boots, Jones! (condition 3)
It's my job to see you've got cleaner boots than this! (condition 4)

then we may be sure both that the sergeant means his words to be perceived as an
order, and that the private will perceive them as such. The private, for his part, may try
to challenge the felicity condition invoked,86) and, if he succeeds (to challenge), he will
take away the status of ‘order' from the utterance. He might say

Don't you think having a well-oiled rifle is more important? Or, <challenge>
I've been scrubbing87) all morning and they won't come any cleaner. Or, <challenge>
I didn't see that in the standing orders,88) sergeant. Or, <challenge>
The Captain89) told me it was all right. <challenge>

In armies the power relations are so clear, and the rights and obligations of the
participants so firmly established, that any one of these comments is likely to be

punished as facetiousness90) or disobedience even though no explicit order has been
given. Having exhausted all these possibilities, the ordering and challenging might
become explicit.

S: Jones. Clean your boots.

Pr : No, sergeant.

S: Jones, I order you to clean your boots.

Pr : No, sergeant.

S: Right, you've had it now.91) Trying to undermine my authority! You're on a charge!92)

Speech act theory, which relates the function of utterances to sets of felicity conditions
and the knowledge of participants that these conditions exist, may help us to understand
the unity of exchanges in communication.

▶ TASK 6
We have seen how a conversation between a sergeant and a private might proceed

86) invoke: 가져오다, 불러내다, e.g. The judge invoked an international law that protects refugees.
e.g. If you invoke something such as a principle, a saying, or a famous person, you refer to them.
87) scrub: 문질러 씻다/ 닦다. e. g. If you scrub something, you rub it hard in order to clean it, using
a stiff brush and water.
88) standing orders: 상설규정 (orders=regulations ) cf. standing committee: 상설위원회
89) captain: 선장, 주장, 중대장(sergeant 보다 계급이 높은 대위로 장교) 소대장: platoon leader
90) facetiousness: 놀림, 우스움 facetious[fəsí:ʃəs]: 우스운, 익살맞은 e.g. If you say that someone is
being facetious, you are criticizing them because they are making humorous remarks that they do not
mean in a situation where they ought to be serious.
91) you've had it now: 갈 때까지 갔구만, (후회하지 마).
92) You're on a charge: 다음에 of insulting(=not obeying) your superior, so you'll be in big trouble (on
court martial) 혹은 ,so you''ll be court-martialed가 가능하다.

- 18 -
by reference to each of the felicity conditions for an order and a challenge to each
of them in turn, before becoming more explicit with the use of a direct order and
an outright refusal. Imagine a situation in which a teacher is telling a pupil to write
a longer answer. Invent a conversation which follows the same stages as that
between the sergeant and the private. The original invented exchange is written out
on the left. Match each utterance with one on the right.

Sergeant and Private Teacher and Pupil

S: I think your boots need cleaning, (condition 1) T: I think this
Jones! answer could
be a bit longer.
Pr: Don't you think having a (challenge) Pu: .…….
well-oiled rifle is more important?
S: I'm bloody sure you can get your (condition 2) T: .…….
boots cleaner than that, Jones!
Pr: I've been scrubbing all morning (challenge) Pu: .…….
and they won't come any cleaner.
S: You're supposed to come on to (condition 3) T: .…….
parade with clean boots, Jones!
Pr: I didn't see that in the standing (challenge) Pu: .…….
S: It's my job to see you've got (condition 4) T: .…….
cleaner boots than this!
Pr: The Captain told me it was all (challenge) Pu: .…….
S: Jones. Clean your boots! (imperative) T: .…….
Pr: No, sergeant. (refusal) Pu: .…….
S: Jones, I order you to clean your (explicit T: .…….
boots. performative)
Pr: No, sergeant. (refusal) Pu: …….
S: Right, you've had it now. Trying T: .…….
to undermine my authority!
You're on a charge!
3. 13 Speech act theor y and coher ence

Speech act theory provides us with a means of probing93) beneath the surface of
discourse and establishing the function of what is being said. This in turn may help us

93) probing: probe의 동명사로 ‘조사하기’ v. probe: 조사하다 e.g. If you probe into something, you ask
questions or try to discover facts about it.

- 19 -
to postulate94) structures beneath the surface, sequences of speech acts (or functions),95)
which may help us to go further towards finding the answer to our original problem:
what is it that makes stretches of language coherent? In brief, We can analyze the
structure of discourse both in terms of surface relations of form, and underlying
relations of functions (and speech acts).96)

▶ TASK 7
What kinds of felicity conditions are necessary for the following utterances to function
as a request and an advice, respectively?
1. I see someone chewing gum.
2. You'd better be more careful about pickpockets.

3.14 Pr agmatics, discour se analysis, and language teaching

In 3 we have discussed two kinds of theories of the pragmatic interpretation of

language: the theories of conversational principles and speech acts. The fact that
meaning is not constructed from the formal, literal language of the message alone is
crucial97) in explaining what it is that makes people perceive some stretches of language
as coherent discourse and others as disconnected jumbles.98) It is also important for the
successful teaching and learning of foreign languages.

The importance of pragmatic theories in language learning is really twofold. Firstly, the
divergence of function and form means that we cannot rely upon teaching only form.
Secondly, the linking of form to function may help learners to orientate themselves99)
within a discourse. All learners of a foreign language are familiar with the disturbing
sensation of understanding every word, and the literal meaning, but somehow missing
the point.100) Really impor tant, however , t he underlying structure of the discourse may
be a progression of functional units, and a breakdown in pragmatic interpretation may
easily lead to a learner losing his or her way.

94) postulate : 가정하다(=assume, suppose, presume, hypothesize) e.g. If you postulate something, you
suggest it as the basis for a theory, argument, or calculation, or assume that it is the basis.
95) structures beneath the surface(표면 이면의 구조) = 기저구조(基底構造: underlying structure:) = 화행/
기능의 연속체(sequences of speech acts or functions)
96) 담화구조(the discourse structure)는 형태(form)의 표면관계(구조)와 기능(functions)의 기저관계(구조)로 분
석할 수 있다.
97) crucial: 중대한, 결정적인(vital, important)
98) jumble: 뒤범벅(이 된 물건), 긁어모은 것 jum·bled: a. 무질서한(chaotic) e.g. The shoreline was
made up of a jumble of huge boulders.
99) orientate[=orient] oneself: i) 자신의 현 위치[상황]를 알다, opp. lose one's way ii) …에 순응하다
(to) e.g. When you orient yourself to a new situation, you learn about it and prepare to deal with it.
100) the disturbing sensation: 귀찮은 일이나 느낌(=the annoying task or feeling) the point: 핵심, 여기서
는 말하는 바(what is said) 즉 그 표현(form)이 갖는 의도(intention)나 기능(function)을 말한다.

- 20 -
- 21 -