담화와 인지, 제10권 3호, 2003년
Characteristics of Korean Politeness: Imposition Is Not Always a Face
Threatening Act
Kyong-Ae Yu
(Chung-Ang University)
Yu, Kyong-Ae. 2003. Characteristics of Korean Politeness: Imposition Is Not Always a Face Threatening
Act. Discourse and Cognition 10.3, 137-163. The principal theoretical aim of the present study is to
challenge the widely accepted notion that politeness is a socio-cultural-linguistic universal. The universal
theories of politeness claim that clarity and politeness are complementary elements and that diverse
politeness phenomena are driven by underlying universal factors, such as non-imposition, optionality and
friendliness. In order to re-examine the universality of the politeness rules and strategies, however, we
should question whether general concepts of linguistic terms such as face, deference and politeness are
universal and whether the constituents of face and face-saving strategies are the same in various
cultures. In this paper, it is argued that the components of face, and face-saving strategies are culturally
different, and that some behavioural patterns have different meanings in different cultures. Also, it is
argued that Brown & Levinson's face threatening acts and face-saving strategies cannot be universal.
This paper upholds the assumption that the functions of speech acts can differ according to
culture-specific norms and languages. (Chung-Ang University)
Key words: Korean politeness, imposition, face threatening acts, face-saving strategies
1. Introduction: General ideas on human interaction and politeness
Theoretically, accommodation theory, social identity and self- categorization theories in social
psychology are related to the politeness theories in linguistics. Accommodation theory,
which is proposed by Giles, Taylor and Bourhis (1973), Giles and Powesland (1975),
Giles and St Clair (1979), Giles and Smith (1979), Giles et al. (1987) and Giles, J.
Coupland and N. Coupland (1991), attempts to explain why speakers modify their
language (Trudgill 1981). Social identity and self-categorization theories are presented
by Tajfel (1978), Turner et al. (1987), Giles and Robinson (1990), Turner (1991),
Oakes, Haslam and Turner (1994), Robinson (1996), Turner and Bourhis (1996),
Abrams (1996), Oakes (1996), and Hogg (1996a, 1996b). While Tajfel's social identity
theory is about general group behaviours, Turner's self-categorization theory provides
an analysis of the self (Turner 1991:155) and focuses how individuals are able to act
as group members (Turner et al. 1987:43). These theories recall Brown & Levinson's
(1978, 1987) face-saving motivations in their politeness theory, when we consider that
politeness can be a form of accommodation to the other's face and constitute one
aspect of smooth interpersonal relations.
It is true that the assumption that people acknowledge self or face and try to
enhance self-evaluation or to save face as a member of social groups is universal.
Kyong-Ae Yu
However, this paper will propose that the constituents of self or face and face-saving
strategies, which are claimed as universal in the previous politeness theories, cannot
be universal and imposition can be polite in some cultures e.g., Korean and
Japanese. Before we argue against the universality of politeness, let me briefly
describe the social psychology theories related to the politeness theories.
In most social situations, people tend to accommodate to others to gain the others'
approval or to increase communicational efficiency between interlocutors and maintain
positive social identities (Giles et al. 1987:15). Accommodative speech shift is
explained by the speaker's motivation to gain the approval of or to dissociate him- or
herself from the listener. The claim that the basic motive of convergence is an
individual's desire for social approval (Giles et al. 1987:16; Giles, N. Coupland, and J.
Coupland 1991:18) is the same motivation as the positive face want in Brown &
Levinson's politeness theory (1987).
Social exchange theory states that people attempt to assess the rewards and costs of
alternative courses of action prior to acting.
In other words, if there is a choice of
doing (or saying) A or B, we tend to choose the alternative which maximizes the
chances of a positive outcome, and minimizes the chance of an unpleasant one
(ibid.). This is the same motivation as Leech's politeness principle (1983:132):
maximize benefit to the other and minimize cost to the other (Tact Maxim); maximize
praise of the other and minimize dispraise of the other (Approbation Maxim); maximize
agreement between self and the other, and minimize disagreement between self and
the other (Agreement Maxim); maximize sympathy between self and the other, and
minimize antipathy between self and the other (Sympathy Maxim).
In addition, speech divergence can be explained by the processes of intergroup
distinctiveness proposed in Tajfel's identity theory. When a speaker wants to maintain his
or her ingroup characteristics and wishes to accentuate the differences between him- or
herself and others, or if a speaker does not require a listener's social approval or does
not value similarity attraction towards the listener, the speaker may adopt nonconvergence or may modify his or her accent in an opposed direction to the listener. Here
the implication that the speaker does not value the listener's approval would hurt the
listener's self-image. One tactic to avoid this impression is to eliminate any negative
intent, i.e., to show the speaker's lack of ability (Giles & Powesland 1975:166). This
motivation is related to face-saving strategies in Brown & Levinson's politeness theory
(1987): the speaker chooses face-saving politeness strategies in order to minimize the
intended face threatening acts and to gain the listener's co-operation.
According to social identity theory, self-enhancement can be achieved through
evaluatively positive social identity in relation to relevant outgroups because it is
assumed that people have a very basic need to have an evaluatively positive
self-concept (Hogg 1996a:67). Brown & Levinson (1987) also see face-saving
motivation as a basic want of the speaker to be polite. The self enhancement
process and the evaluatively positive self in social identity theory are similar to Brown
Characteristics of Korean Politeness
& Levinson's face-saving motivations, in particular, positive face wants (the desire to
be approved by other person). Turner et al. (1987) hypothesize that people are
motivated to maintain a positive self-evaluation, which is a function of their relative
prototypicality at any given level of self-other comparison, and assume that there is a
general tendency to seek positive distinctiveness for oneself at any salient level of
self-categorization, i.e., to create and enhance favourable differences between oneself
and ingroup members, or between ingroup and outgroup (Turner et al. 1987:62).
Brown & Levinson assume that all rational model persons have face, which is defined
as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself (1987:61).
They claim that the positive face want, i.e., the individuals desire for social approval
and/or
desire
for
solidarity,
(motivation
of
the
similarity
attraction
process
in
accommodation theory) and the negative face want, i.e., the desire to avoid
imposition on the other, are the most important motivations of politeness strategies in
interpersonal communication. The goal of face-saving strategies is eventually to gain
positive evaluation from others and thus to enhance one's public self-image.
Self-categorization theory assumes and hypothesizes the functioning of the social
self-concept. Marquez-Reiter (2000:23) points out that the notion of self consists of
two components: a physical sense of self which is physically distinct and separable
from others; and an inner or private self. In our argument here, the self-concept
refers to inner self, not physical self. Turner et al. (1987:44) state that particular
self-concepts tend to be activated in specific situations, producing specific self-images.
They
distinguish
self-concept
and
self-image:
self-concept
is
the
hypothetical
cognitive structure that cannot be observed directly; self-image is the perceptual
output, i.e., the subjective experience of self produced by the functioning of some
part of that structure (ibid.). The self-concept is private and hidden; the self-image is
public.
Turner et al. (1987) clarify the ideal self as the most prototypical instance of the
positive self-category. People are compared in terms of the ideal self when self and
others are evaluated in any specific setting. For example, a person is generally
evaluated positively when she or he approximates the ideal member of a positive
group. Their perceived similarity to one's ideal self in that specific situation directly
functions as an attraction to others (op. cit. 57). Thus, people may use politeness
strategies in their conversations to approximate the ideal member of a positive group
and to be evaluated positively.
Turner
et
al.
(1987:58)
also
assume
that
negative
self-evaluation
instigates
psychological activity to restore self-esteem. This process seems to be related to the
redressive action of Brown & Levinson's politeness theory. Face- saving strategies
operate to restore self-esteem to reduce negative self- evaluation and face-loss.
Abrams (1996:146) also distinguishes between the two self-concepts: collective and
private selves. Following the model of Trafimow et al. (1991), he divides cognitions
about self into two distinct components or baskets: private self-cognitions around a
Kyong-Ae Yu
general private self-concept; and collective self-cognitions around a general collective
self-concept.
The
collective
self
contains
affiliations,
group
memberships
and
connections to collectives of all types. The private self contains knowledge of one's
own attitudes, traits, feeling and behaviour. The former is the publicly disclosed self
and the latter is the hidden self.
The public self-image is the same as the concept of face in Brown & Levinson's
(1978, 1987) politeness theory. They assume that all rational model persons have
face, i.e., self-esteem. They define face as the public self-image that every member
wants to claim for himself (1987:61) and insist that their face-saving strategies are
universal and the most important politeness motivation in human interaction.
This paper is organized as follows. In the following section, the common ideas in
universal politeness theories are described and criticized. In section 3, we will discuss
different cultural patterns with different meanings; in section 4, definition of politeness
in reference to English and Korean; in sections 5 and 6, face-saving strategies as
secondary features and imposition as a non-face threatening act in Korean politeness.
Finally, there will be brief concluding remarks in section 7.
2. Common ideas in universal politeness theories and critique
The universal politeness theories proposed by Lakoff (1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1979,
1989, 1990), Leech (1983), and Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987) explain politeness in
various ways, but their views on politeness are related to each other through the
following common ideas:
(1) Grice's
Co-operative
principle
(1975:45-46)
is
the
underlying
basis
of
conversations and it can be violated for the purpose of politeness. Thus,
Co-operative principle is not subordinate but complementary to their politeness
principles.
(2) Non-imposition is one universal characteristic of politeness. They claim that
avoidance of imposition keeps distance between the speaker and the hearer and
leads to formal politeness. In order not to impose on the other, it is necessary
to give options to the other and to use indirect directives.1)
(3) Giving options to avoid imposition is another characteristic of politeness. Thus,
an order is impolite because it imposes on the other, and should be changed to
an offer if it is to be polite.
(4) Indirectness to avoid imposition and to give options to the hearer is motivated
by politeness. Indirectness is necessary to mitigate imposition and to offer
options.
1) According to Leech's (1983) Tact Maxim, imposition to maximize benefit to the other can be polite. For example, when
offering very delicious food, saying that "You must take this cake" is more polite than saying that "You may take this
cake." However, please note that the syntactic device of imposition is typically imperatives and that the use of
imperative forms, e.g., "Take this cake a lot" is very limited in English.
Characteristics of Korean Politeness
(5) Politeness is a set of stylistic strategies; politeness rules are applied as stylistic
choices.
Although these core ideas in the previous politeness theories are claimed as universal,
it is not necessarily the case that the conception of politeness and the degree of
politeness are the same among different cultures. In Lakoff's pragmatic competence
rules
(1973:296,
298),
the
rules
of
clarity
(which
are
identical
with
Grice's
Co-operative Principle) are complementary with her politeness rules. In some cultures,
however, clarity and politeness are not complementary. For example, indirectness does
not imply politeness in Korean (Yu 1999). To impose on the hearer to do something
can be polite in Korean (section 6). In some cultures, formality does not necessarily
correlate with politeness. Deference also does not always mean giving options, and
camaraderie does not always show sympathy either (see Sifianou 1992). Moreover,
friendliness and camaraderie are not necessarily seen as characteristics of politeness
in all cultures, for example, in Korean and Japanese (Yu 2002).
Also, some explanations in the previous approaches are too strong in some aspects.
Leech (1983:83) claims that some illocutions (e.g., orders) are inherently impolite, and
others (e.g., offers) are inherently polite. Unlike Leech, Fraser (1990:90) thinks that no
sentence is inherently polite or impolite, and Sifianou (1992:29) asks: is it true that
some linguistic forms are intrinsically courteous and others are intrinsically discourteous
in an absolute sense? Are orders intrinsically impolite and offers intrinsically polite in
any cross cultural situations? What the researcher wants to argue against here is the
view that some acts are intrinsically impolite and threaten the interlocutor's faces; and
that the motivation of politeness is the speaker's wish to save the addressee's positive
and negative face, factors which Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987) claim are universal.
In the case of Korean, it is hard to claim that politeness rules are triggered by their
face threatening acts and by their two face-saving strategies. Sometimes, even an on
record expression of Brown & Levinson's face threatening acts can be polite in Korean
culture.
3. Different cultural patterns with different meanings
Peoples with different cultural backgrounds can have not only different concepts, but
also different cultural patterns with different meanings.
Speakers from different
cultures can also use different conventions to accomplish the same conversational
goals. For example, when an overlap- favouring speaker begins to speak before the
other's speech is finished to show that s/he has been listening, an overlap-avoiding
speaker interprets this as an interruption and stops talking (Tannen 1985:205). In
English, finishing someone else's unfinished sentence is usually regarded as impolite,
but in Japanese conversation, it can be regarded as a sign of interested participation
(Mizutani & Mizutani 1987:24). Similarly, when we re-examine the supposedly universal
Kyong-Ae Yu
politeness rules cross-culturally, we find that some rules cannot be claimed to be
universal.
Leech's Agreement Maxim (1983:132) - minimize disagreement, maximize agreement
- and one of Brown & Levinson's positive politeness strategies (1987:102) - seek
agreement or avoid disagreement - are proposed as universals. From the viewpoint of
Brown & Levinson (1987), all arguments are face threatening acts. But Schiffrin
(1984) raises questions about this assumption and introduces Jewish argument as
co-operative disagreement and sociability. She sees argument among Jewish speakers
as co-operative politeness because they use argument as a vehicle for sociability. She
presents these three features of argument in Jewish culture (1984:316): (i) sustained
disagreement; (ii) the participation framework of talk with stance and alignment; (iii)
competition. For Jewish speaker's argument for disagreement is an explicit form of
sociability, and conflict can be a sign of the closeness or intimacy of their relationship
in their society. Wierzbicka (1991:92) also gives an example of Israeli culture where
bluntness in saying 'no' is viewed positively. Thus, in these societies, argument may
not be a universal face threatening act.
A similar argument applies to Leech's Modesty Maxim. Kochman (1981) has shown
that in Black American culture, boasting is in essence a humorous exaggeration so
that self-praise is not viewed negatively at all. Mizutani and Mizutani (1987) have also
shown that approbation or praise of other is not encouraged in Japanese culture. They
say that most Japanese refrain from directly praising someone else's looks, abilities or
skills (op. cit. 45-46). To be polite, Japanese would choose less direct expressions.
Asking someone's wishes directly is also impolite in Japan (op. cit. 48-49). To be
polite, Japanese people should ask for instructions rather than directly inquire as to
someone's wishes.
On a theoretical level, Blum-Kulka (1992) presents four essential parameters for politeness;
social motivations, expressive modes, social differentials and social meaning. She explains
that these four factors are incorporated into the system of politeness. Social motivation
explains the why of politeness. For example, alternative modes of expression for both
propositional and relational attitudes may assign different social values to their choice
because the constituents of face-wants can differ among cultures. Expressive modes
explain the how of politeness: different cognitive habits manifest different linguistic choices.
Social differentials explain the when of politeness: on the situational dimension, the degree
to which linguistic politeness is conventionalized relative to culture and situation depends on
cross-cultural variation. Social meaning explains the what for of politeness: the degree to
which any linguistic expression is considered polite by members of a given culture in a
specific situation depends on culturally coloured definitions of the situation. Therefore,
degree of politeness varies by situational perceptions. All are filtered by cultural norms. The
distinctive features of each of the four parameters are determined by cultural filters
(Blum-Kulka 1992: 270-277). Thus, the differences in ways of speaking among people
come from different ideas based on different cultural values or hierarchies.
Characteristics of Korean Politeness
Kyong-Ae Yu
4. Definition of politeness in reference to English and Korean2)
The term politeness itself has been defined by the idea of avoiding conflict or running
smooth
communications. Lakoff
(1989:102)
minimizing the risk of confrontation in
defines
discourse3);
politeness
as
a means
of
Leech(1983:104) defines it asthe
social goal of establishing and maintaining comity; Fraser and Nolen (1981:96) take
the view of politeness as not to violate the conversational contract; Brown and
Levinson (1987) see it as to minimize the imposition on the addressee. However,
these kinds of definition do not show the explicit meaning of the linguistic politeness.
Moreover, these definitions do not explicitly distinguish politeness from the notions of
deference and honorifics.
Politeness is conveyed by a deferential attitude and by honorific forms of language.
The term 'deference' denotes the concept of courteous respect or regard for others,
while the term 'honorific' denotes a grammatical form conveying respect or honour.
Thus, politeness is the wider concept, which includes deference and honorifics.
Hwang (1975) also points out that politeness is not identical with deference in Korean,
although his analysis differs from ours and also from that of Sohn (1988). In Hwang's
study, the concept of politeness is related to situation, and is not purely linguistic:
Were politeness identical with deference, it would be impossible for one to be
both non-deferential and polite, or deferential and blunt, because these would
mean
non-deferential
deferential
or
deferential
non-deferential,
respectively.
Careful analyses show that politeness is a different dimension from deference
because one can be condescending in terms of speech levels but polite, or
conversely be deferential in terms of speech levels but blunt, although deference
is normally accompanied by politeness.
Deference is expressed by the speech level and the honorifics, and politeness by
other linguistic means such as intonation contour, indirect request, and most
commonly hedges. (Hwang 1975:151)
However, As Sohn points out, when speakers perform face threatening acts, if they
use the deferential speech level they at least show their socially appropriate regard to
the addressee. If the speaker uses a lower speech level for the face threatening acts,
impoliteness would be increased.
The definition of Korean politeness that we suggest is the speaker's respect of other
and the speaker's self-deprecation. This definition is supported by an analysis of the
2) Although the linguistic expression of politeness is conditioned by the social relationship of the participants, our
discussions here are largely limited to the analysis of linguistic expressions and do not extend to a study of relative
politeness, which is explained by Leech (1983:102, note 3) in contrast to absolute politeness. Thus, paralinguistic
factors, such as intonation, prosodic and kinesic clues to the speaker's attitude, are excluded in the dimension of
linguistic politeness and not discussed in this paper.
3) Lakoff (1990:34) defines politeness in her later work again: "Politeness is a system of interactional relations designed
to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange."
Characteristics of Korean Politeness
Korean word gongson 'politeness'. In the word gongson 'politeness', Sino-Korean
gong means 'respect' and son means 'humility'. It demonstrates that both respect
and humility are properties of politeness. On the other hand, the word jondae
'deference' differs from gongson 'politeness' in its literal meaning: Sino-Korean jon
means 'respect' and dae means 'treatment'. This word does not literally have the
meaning of humility or modesty. Jondae 'deference' is included in the concepts of
gongson 'politeness', and jondaemal 'deference language' is necessarily required for
linguistic politeness. Jondaemal corresponds to 'respect language' which is the term
Sadock (1974:42) uses. He explains that respect language is at least partially a
grammatical
phenomenon:
inconsistent
use
of
respect
language
results
in
ungrammaticality. To use respect language is grammatically required for politeness in
some societies, including Korean and Japanese societies.
Jondaemal includes deferential suffixes and two types of lexical item: honorific and
self-deprecatory forms. Generally, honorific and self- deprecatory lexical items are opposed
to plain or neutral lexical items. The use of honorifics and deferential speech levels is
grammatically required to exalt the addressee or the third person spoken about; in
addition,
the
use
of
self-deprecatory
forms
and
humble
linguistic
usage
is
grammatically required to show the speaker's self-deprecation. Consider the examples
below4):
(1) Je-ga
halabeonim-eul
mannaboip-go
I[+H]-nom grandfather[+H]-acc
meet[+H]-and
geu-munje-leul yeojjwobo-gess-eupnida.
the-matter-acc ask [+H]-wil-dec [P]
'I will meet Grandfather and ask about the matter.'
(2)*Nae-ga halabeonim-eul
mannabo-go
I-nom
grandfather[+H]-acc meet-and
geu-munje-leul
muleobo-gess-eupnida.
the-matter-acc
ask-wil-dec [P]
'I will meet Grandfather and ask about the matter.'
In example (1), when the speaker talks to his/her father, self-deprecatory lexical
items, such as je-ga 'I[+H]-nom', mannaboipda 'meet[+H]' and yeojjuda 'ask[+H]',
and the deferential (eu)pnida level are necessarily required to be polite. However,
when the speaker uses plain lexical items in example (2), such as nae-ga 'I-nom',
mannaboda 'meet' and mutda 'ask', the utterance is not only ungrammatical but also
unacceptable by social convention. Example (2) is ungrammatical because it does not
follow syntactic agreement of subject honorification: the subject nae-ga 'I[-H]-nom'
4) The new system of romanization for the Korean language, which was proclaimed by the Korean government in 2000, is
used in this paper. Also, the following abbreviation and symbols are used: [P] (formal deferential), [Y] (informal
deferential), [T] (formal non- deferential), [E] (informal non-deferential), [+H] (honorific lexical item), nom
(nominative), dat (dative), acc (accusative), wil (willingness), dec (declarative), Imp (imperative), and Q (question), HM
(honorific marker).
Kyong-Ae Yu
has to be changed to je-ga 'I[+H]-nom' to be grammatically consistent with the
deferential suffix eupnida from muleobogess-eupnida; otherwise, the subject nae-ga
'I[-H]-nom'
should
be
used
together
with
the
non-deferential
suffix
da from
muleobogess-da 'ask[-H]', not with the deferential suffix eupnida. Example (2) is
also unacceptable by social convention because the speaker does not use referent
honorification
for
his
or
her
grandfather:
halabeonim-eul 'grandfather [+H]-acc'
mannaboip-go 'meet[+H]-and' yeojjwobogessda 'ask[+H]'. Even though the elderly man is
not
the
speaker's
own
grandfather,
the
speaker
is
expected
to
use
referent
honorification because elderly people are usually respected in Korea.
Politeness is expressed not only by the speaker's respect for the other party but also
by the speaker's self-deprecation, as Lakoff (1972) claims that the speaker's
self-deprecation is an integral part of politeness:
...we can assume that there is a universal definition of what constitutes linguistic
politeness: part of this involves the speaker's acting as though his status were
lower than that of the addressee. What may differ from language to language, or
culture to culture or from subculture to subculture within a language is the
question of WHEN it is polite to be polite, to what extent, and how it is shown
in terms of superficial linguistic behavior. (Lakoff 1972:911)
To use expressions showing self-deprecation causes the speaker to be lower.
By
lowering themselves or making themselves humble, speakers can indirectly elevate the
addressee. Well-educated Koreans are expected to describe their belongings, close
associates or in-group members in a deprecatory way.
Rather they may insincerely
complain about their spouses in casual meetings with their friends. When they hear
praise and compliments for their husbands, wives and children, to say "thank you" is
neither polite, nor appropriate. English speakers might respond to a compliment about
their children with "Yes, my son is really brilliant" or "She is my daughter. Isnt she
lovely?" However, modest Koreans might say: "No, it is not true. Rather I am worried
that my child is too spoiled." This attitude showing self-deprecation is polite and
highly valued in Korea.
In addition to the use of honorifics, stylistic politeness strategies can contribute to
politeness as well. When two utterances on the same speech level are compared, an
utterance expressed by polite linguistic devices, such as hedges, conventional indirect
request forms, is more polite than an utterance without these linguistic devices. For
example, in the case of requests, interrogative forms are more polite than imperatives:
(3) Geu
bun-eul
The
person[+H]-acc
"Please meet the person."
manna-ju-si-psio.
meet-give-HM-imp[P]
(4) Geu
manna-ju-si-gess-eupnikka?
bun-eul
Characteristics of Korean Politeness
The
person[+H]-acc meet-give-HM-wil-Q[P]
"Would you like to meet the person?"
In the examples above, both utterances are polite because they are expressed by
jondaemal 'deferential language', but example (4) is more polite than example (3)
because example (4) asks the addressee's willingness. However, this strategic
expression is an optional and secondary feature for politeness in Korean.
To summarize the discussion so far, there are two ways of showing politeness in
Korean: mainly by the use of jondaemal 'deferential language' in grammar; but also
secondarily by the stylistic politeness strategies. This is illustrated in (5) below:
(5) Characteristics of politeness in Korean
1. Grammatically consistent use of jondaemal 'deferential language' is the main and primary
feature for politeness, which is obligatory. There are two manners of the use of jondaemal:
(a) Exaltation for the other part.
Use honorific forms and deferential speech levels.
(b) Self-deprecation
Use self-deprecatory or humble linguistic forms
2..
Use of stylistic politeness strategies is a secondary and optional feature. In order
to be more polite, use polite linguistic devices, such as hedges, conventional indirect
requests, or euphemisms.
In addition, there are two pragmatic rules for politeness. When Koreans offer
something good to the hearer, it is a social rule for the hearer to hesitate to accept it
or to decline it the first time, and it is then polite to accept the hospitality. This initial
refusal can often be merely a sign of modesty on the other part. On the other hand,
it is polite for the host or hostess to repeat his or her offer two or three times to be
sure of the addressee's true intention. Thus, if the intended act is in the interests of
the hearer, it is better to use direct or reinforcing forms, e.g., imperatives using verb
stem + (eu)sipsio/ (eu)seyo.
For example, gwail jom deusipsio 'please have some fruit' is more polite than gwail
jom deusigetsseupnikka? 'would you like to have some fruit?' As another example, it
is a virtue for a young person to give up his or her seat for an elderly person who
cannot find a seat in a bus. As an offer to give a seat to the elderly in a crowded
bus, an imperative form, e.g., yeogi anjeusipsio/anjeuseyo 'Sit down here please' is
generally more polite and more appropriate than an interrogative form, e.g., yeogi
anjeusigesseupnikka? 'Would you like to (please) sit down here?' Because the
interrogative form encodes a question rather than a genuine offer, a modest Korean
might refuse it, saying aniyo, gwaenchanhayo 'no, (I) am okay'.
Second, if the intended act is disadvantageous to the hearer, that is, the speaker is
the beneficiary and the hearer is the benefactor of the intended act, it is polite to use
mitigated and indirect forms such as hedges, or interrogative sentences as in (6):
Kyong-Ae Yu
(6) Pragmatic rules for Korean politeness
1. Use bare direct and reinforcing forms if the speech acts are done for the interest of the
hearer.
2. Use mitigated and indirect forms if the speech acts are done for the interest of the speaker.
However, the linguistic expression of politeness in English is different from that of
Korean. Wierzbicka (1985b:148) points out that in English a tentative offer (even a
very informal one) tends to refer to the hearer's desires and opinions:
(7) Sure you wouldn't like a bash at some?
Like a swig at the milk?
According to Wierzbicka, the phrasing of such offers implies that the speaker is not
trying to impose his will on the addressee, but he is merely trying to find out what the
addressee himself wants and thinks (ibid.). When the guest hesitates or declines the
hosts hospitality, 'are you sure?', which is often addressed by hosts to their guests,
can indicate that the speaker regards the hearer as an autonomous person with the
option of refusal in English society. But the literal equivalents of this kind of offer are
neither polite nor appropriate in Korean. Imposition by way of an offer, e.g., an
imperative form is polite and natural in Korean society. In the following sections,
face-saving strategies as secondary features and imposition as non-face threatening
acts in Korean are discussed in detail.
5. Face-saving strategies as secondary features in Korean politeness
Hill et al. (1986) hypothesize that there are two complementary aspects of linguistic
politeness, discernment and volition,5) and assume that discernment is the major aspect of
linguistic politeness prevalent in the East, while volition is the major aspect of
linguistic politeness prevalent in the West. They propose that the necessity for speaker
discernment
and
the
opportunity
for
speaker
volition
are
universal
factors
in
sociolinguistic politeness. They hypothesize the following model for sociolinguistic rules
of politeness and its universal applicability (op. cit. 362):
1. p. Decide the desired degree of politeness (Volition).
q. Assess the factors designated as relevant (Discernment).
2. Read the rule specifying the order and optionality for p and q in
the particular language being used.
3. Produce an appropriate linguistic form according to the
5) In a situation of discernment, once certain factors of addressee and situation are noted, the selection of an appropriate
linguistic form and appropriate behaviour is essentially automatic and obligatory according to social norms or
conventions. It is a matter of obligatory linguistic choice. In a situation of volition, the speaker can actively choose an
appropriate linguistic form from a relatively wide range of possibilities, depending on the speakers intention. It is a
matter of an intentional, strategic linguistic choice.
Characteristics of Korean Politeness
sociolinguistic rules of the language.
Hill et al. (1986) claim that the overall model of polite use of language is universally
applicable, but differs in the weight assigned to the various factors subsumed under
discernment and volition. For example, for Japanese and Korean, q is obligatory and
primary; p is optional and secondary. However, for American English, p is primary; q
is obligatory but secondary. They say discernment has relatively little significance in
western cultures but is the predominant factor in the polite use of Japanese (Hill et
al. 1986:348).
Ide et al. (1992) empirically show that the concept of American English polite is
oriented to volition and the concept of Japanese teineina 'polite' is oriented to
discernment. However, Korean politeness is oriented to both discernment and volition
(for more argument, see Yu 2002). As Ide and Peng (1995:6) point out when they
explain wakimae referring to 'sense of place' in Japanese, the linguistic aspect of
Korean politeness is characterized as a grammatical system of honorifics, which is
used according to almost automatic, socially agreed-upon rules. In addition, as a
secondary and optional politeness strategies, Korean speakers employ a system of
stylistic strategies, which reflects the speaker's intentional choice to make the speech
more polite.
In the previous section, we suggest that Korean politeness is primarily expressed by
use of jondaemal 'deferential language' and secondarily by Brown & Levinson's (1978,
1987) face-saving strategies. For example, When Koreans tell an adult to clean up a
room, using the non-deferential imperative form cheongsohaela 'clean up [E]' as in
(1)
is
much
more
impolite
than
(2),
where
the
deferential
imperative
form
chongsohaeyo 'clean up [Y]' is used:
(1) Bang jom
cheongsohae-la
room a little [please] clean up Imp-[E]
'Please clean up the room [E].'
(2) Bang
jom
cheongsohae-yo
room
a little [please] clean up Imp-[Y]
'Please clean up the room [Y].'
We can use interrogatives to redress the imposition of imperatives.
However,
imperatives with honorific forms and deferential suffixes are much more polite than
interrogatives
or
hedged
expressions
without
honorifics
and
deferential
although the speech acts without them satisfy negative politeness strategies:
(3) Bang jom
cheongsohaeju-llae?
Room a little
give me the favour of cleaning up-Q[E]
'Will you do me the favour of cleaning up the room please?[E]'
suffixes,
Kyong-Ae Yu
(4) Bang jom
cheongsohaeju-llaeyo?
Room a little
give me the favour of cleaning up-HM-Q[Y]
'Would you do me the favour of cleaning up the room please?[Y]'
(3) and (4) use the polite request word ju 'give' and the conventional indirect request
strategy, but (3) is much more impolite than (2) which is an imperative with
deferential suffix yo. In other words, we should note that politeness in Korean is
expressed by the use of jondaemal 'deferential language'. Brown & Levinson's
face-saving strategies, such as hedges, conventional indirect requests, euphemisms or
intonation, are secondarily added to be more polite.
For example, (3) is more polite
than (1); (4) is more polite than (2).
In addition, some expressions that are not intrinsically face threatening acts are
related to Korean politeness. For example, 'it is raining' does not contain a face
threatening act. But this statement can be evaluated to be polite in Korea if the
deferential suffix (eu)pnida is attached, and to be impolite if the non-deferential suffix
eo is used to adults. Rather than using the non-deferential form biga wa 'it is
raining', one can use the deferential ending suffix pnida in the honorific form biga
opnida 'it is raining' to show the speaker's regard for the addressee:
(5) Father: Bakke biga oni? 'Is it raining outside?'
Child: Ne. Biga opnida. 'Yes. It is raining.'
In the example above, the child uses the honorific form Ne. Biga opnida 'Yes. It is
raining' to show his/her regard for his/her father. It is true that if the speaker uses the
non-deferential form Ung. Biga wa 'Yes. It is raining' it may not show his/her regard
for the addressee and may threaten the addressee's face. Clearly, however, in cases
like this example honorifics in Korean are not negative politeness strategies to mitigate
coercion of the addressee.
As discussed so far, Korean speakers obligatorily use the appropriate speech level,
considering the interrelationship between both participants, social status and age
difference. Use of honorific terms and expressions to a person in a higher position is
strictly and grammatically required as a social rule, not a basic 'want' of the speaker
to freely apply to everyone, as in western society. If an unexpected form is used, the
speaker may be treated as a person not knowing polite linguistic usage, or there is
an explicit implication that the speaker is rude or the speaker does not want to be
polite to the addressee or to the third person. The social norm to use honorifics to a
person in higher position is almost obligatorily applied in a face-to-face situation: in
Korean, politeness is not only a voluntary action but also includes discernment.
6. Imposition as non-face threatening acts in Korean
Characteristics of Korean Politeness
According to Brown & Levinson's (1978, 1987) definition of face threatening acts
(FTAs), imposition is an intrinsically face-threatening act. But in Japanese and
Korean, imposition to ask to receive for the hearer or to do the favour of doing X for
the speaker can be a polite act. In such cases, speakers use formulaic expressions
which contain impositions but are commonly perceived as polite. See the examples
below6):
(1) In the case of giving a gift7)
Byeolgeoseun anijiman batajuseyo.
(lit.) This is not something special but give the favour of receiving it.
'This is nothing special, but please accept it.'
(2) In the case of offering some food
Maseun eopsjiman manhi deuseyo.
'The taste is not good but please have a lot.'
Giving expensive gifts or offering delicious foods, Koreans commonly use formulaic
expressions of this type and impose acceptance regardless of signs of rejection on
the others part. (The recipient or the guest commonly shows signs of rejection by
saying no, no.) Note that these impositions are expressed by imperative forms and
are considered polite. In these cases, the use of a negative politeness strategy, for
example, the use of interrogative forms, is not suitable: such interrogatives sound like
real questions. The politeness of these formulaic expressions should be explained in
terms of Korean cultural norms, which require exalting the addressee and showing the
speakers
humbleness,
not
of
Brown
&
Levinson's
(1978,
1987)
face-
saving
strategies. Wierzbicka's (1996) semantic formulae can describe them as follows:
(3) I think: this is something good.
I want to give it to you
I can't say to you: this is something good for you
I can say to you: this is not something good for you (speakers humbleness)
this is not something good for you but you can have it for me (exaltation of the other)
I know: it will be good for you if you do it
you will do it because of this
I can say to you to do it because of this (imposition)
I say: this is not something good but have it.
Let
us
consider
another
example.
When
a
Korean
speaker
says
jal
butak
hapnida/deulipnida literally 'I entrust (myself or this) to you and ask you to treat (me
or this) well', if the speaker is of higher or equal status and rank, this utterance
shows
the
speaker's
self-deprecation.
The
conventionalized
humble
reply
is
6) See Matsumoto (1988:412) for the Japanese examples
7) Modesty maxim is applied in English too, e.g., "Here's a little something for you." However, note that the use of
imperatives in such a case is very limited in English but Korean speakers use imperative forms in examples (1) and (2).
Kyong-Ae Yu
cheonmaneyo. byeolmalsseum da hasipnida literally 'Not at all. You make an absurd
(or strange) remark'. Both speech acts, according to Brown & Levinson's (1978,
1987) definition, definitely threaten the interlocutor's faces and infringe on the hearer's
territory. They are Brown & Levinson's FTAs without face redressive actions, but they
are actually very polite speech acts in Korean (and in Japanese).
Since in Korean and Japanese cultures interdependence and inter- relationship are
encouraged,
and
since
it
is
important
to
acknowledge
interdependence
and
interrelationship as a member of the group and to exalt the other and to lower
oneself, it is quite polite to show one's dependence and to impose on a senior to do
favours. Using Wierzbicka's (1996) semantic formulae, we can describe the hidden
social meanings of the conventionalized expressionsjal butakhapnidaand cheonmaneyo
byeol malsseum da hasipnidaas follows:
(4) Imposition to ask favours
I think: you are higher than me (exaltation of the other)
you can do good things for me if I want you to do it
I want you to do good things for me (imposition)
I know: it will be good for me if you do it
you will do it because of this
I say this because I want you to do it for me (imposition)
(5) Reply
I think: I am not higher than you (self-deprecation)
because of this you don't have to say it to me
[jal butak hapnida]
I know: you say this because you think I am higher than you
you say something not true because of this
I say: don't say something not true
I say this to you because of this
[cheonman eyo byeolmalsseum da hasipnida]
Thus, both the speaker and the addressee show self-deprecation and their deference
toward the other by lowering themselves and raising the other. In this utterance,
performing Brown & Levinson's (1978, 1987) face threatening act is much politer than
using one of their politeness strategies. The reason is that the conceptual mechanism
triggering politeness here is not what Brown & Levinson propose as face threatening acts
and
face-saving
strategies,
but
the
acknowledgment
of
interdependence
and
interrelationship based on status, rank and age difference in Korean and Japanese
societies.
Imposition can therefore be connected with politeness in Korean. Let me give an
example. In the rehearsal for a graduation ceremony at the Korean School of
Auckland, two teachers imposed on the principal to play the piano or to conduct
Korean National Song, but this was not a face threatening act but polite behaviour. In
their conversation below they all used jondaemal the deferential language with
Characteristics of Korean Politeness
honorifics to each other:
(6) Principal: Sikui cheo-eume aegukgaleul sijak hapsida.
Maikeu kiga eodi issjiyo? Nuga pianoleul chijiyo?
Teacher A: Gyojang seonsaengnim, gyojang seonsaengnimi pianoleul chisigeona jihwileul
haseyo!
Teacher B: Ahyuu! Mullon, gyojang seonsaengnimi jihwileul hasyeoyamanhaeyo. Gyojang
seonsaengnimeun nolaelul jal buleusinikkayo.
Principal: (strongly deny) Eohyuu! Aniyeyo, aniyeyo. Nolaeleul jalhandago
malsseumhasijimaseyo. Jeoneun nolae jal mothaeyo.
Principal: In the beginning of the ceremony, lets start National Song.
Where is the key for the mike? Who will play the piano?
Teacher A: Mr. Principal, play the piano or conduct!.
Teacher B: Ahyuu! Of course, Mr. Principal [You] must conduct because Mr. Principal [you]
sings songs well.
Principal: (strongly deny) Eohyuu! No, no. Never say (I) sing songs well. I don't sing songs
well.
The two teachers imposed on the Principal to conduct the Korean National Song at
the graduation ceremony because they knew that he had majored in music and sang
very well. In this situation imposing on him to do what he can do well is a
compliment and polite behaviour, not a face threatening act. Although he rejected the
compliment and did not play the piano nor conduct in the ceremony, he was pleased
by their offer.
In Korean, imposition can be a polite action and the use of honorifics is much more
necessary for politeness than the realization of negative or positive face-saving
strategies. When we draw the models of Korean politeness and English politeness with
Venn diagrams, the models can be as in (7) and (8). When Brown & Levinson's
politeness theory is expressed in a Venn diagram, their model can successfully explain
the English politeness system but not the Korean one as in (9). Also, we can imagine
another possible model of politeness, which is the opposite of Brown & Levinson's
model as in (10) In the Venn diagrams below, a big circle stands for the main feature
of politeness; a small circle stands for the subsidiary feature of politeness; P means
politeness; A means honorific system; and B means negative/positive face-saving
strategies.
(7) Korean politeness
P
(8) English politeness
P
A
B
B
Kyong-Ae Yu
(9) B& L's model of politeness
P
(10) Another possible model
P
B
A
A
B
7. Concluding remarks
In this paper, our arguments have focused on the assumption that politeness rules
should be presented in a culture-specific system because the notions of linguistic
terms such as face and deference and the constituents of face-saving strategies are
not universal. This paper also shows that imposition in oriental cultures such as
Japanese and Korean is considered as polite behaviour, not a face-threatening act as
presented
in Brown &
Levinson
(1978, 1987),
and that
their
face-threatening
strategies are not the main elements, but secondary features in Korean politeness.
However, this does not mean that politeness phenomena are totally different among
cultures and separated from each other.
Some features of politeness are found as
common elements among cultures, like overlapping circles on Venn diagrams:
Characteristics of Korean Politeness
A
B
C
When we compare politeness phenomena among cultures, for example, western
cultures, there are common elements overlapping between the cultures as in the
diagram sets A, B and C above. Otherwise, we can imagine the other pattern in
which some politeness features may overlap between two cultures as in D and E, and
E and F, but not between D and F:
D
E
F
Although some concepts of politeness in culture E are connected with the other
cultures D and F as a bridge as shown in the Venn diagram, if we compare cultures
D and F, for example, individualistic and collectivistic cultures, we would conclude
that the concepts and degrees of politeness in the two cultures differ from each other
and thus they should be explained in terms of a culture-specific system of politeness.
Nevertheless, it is premature to conclude that politeness phenomena necessarily show
an
extreme
relativistic
nature
i.e.,
that
they
are
necessarily
different
and
incommensurate in every culture because the present study has specifically focused on
English
and
Korean.
However,
our
demonstration
of
a
significant
relativistic
reinterpretation of the universalist position now puts the onus on universalist scholars
to modify their position, or to produce new arguments to reinforce it.
References
Abrams, Dominic. 1996. Social identity, self as structure and self as process. Social groups and identities:
Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel, ed. by W. P. Robinson, 143-168. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bailey, Benjamin. 1997. Communication of respect in interethnic service encounters. Language in Society 26,
327-356.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1992. Metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. Politeness in language: Studies in
its history, theory and practice, ed. by R. Watts et al., 255-280. Berlin; New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena.
Questions in politeness, ed. by E. N. Goody, 56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-----. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A Critique of politeness theories. Manchester, UK; Northampton MA: St. Jerome Publishing.
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 219-236.
Fraser, Bruce, and William Nolen. 1981. The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of
the Sociology of Language 27, 93-109.
Kyong-Ae Yu
Giles, Howard et al. 1987. Speech accommodation theory: the first decade and beyond. Communication
Yearbook 10, 13-48.
Giles, Howard, Justine Coupland, and Nikolas Coupland. 1991. Accommodation theory: communication, context,
and consequence. Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics, 1-68. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Giles, Howard, and Peter F. Powesland. 1975. Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.
Giles, Howard, and W. Peter. Robinson (eds.). 1990. Handbook of language and social psychology. John Wiley
& Sons.
Giles, Howard, and Robert N. St. Clair. 1979. Language and social psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Giles, Howard, and Philip M. Smith. 1979. Accommodation theory: optimal levels of convergence. Language and
social psychology, eds. by Howard Giles and Robert N. St. Clair, 45-65. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
Giles, Howard, David. M. Taylor, and Richard. Y. Bourhis. 1973. Towards a theory of interpersonal
accommodation through language: some Canadian data. Language in Society 2, 177-192.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3, 41-58.
Hill, Beverly, S. Ide, S. Ikuta, A. Kawasaki, T. Ogino. 1986. Universals of linguistic politeness. Journal of
Pragmatics 10, 347-371.
Hogg, Michael A. 1996a. Intragroup processes, group structure and social identity. Social group and identities:
Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel, ed. by W. P. Ronbinson, 65-93. Butterworth-Heinemann.
-----. 1996b. Social identity, self-categorization, and the small group. Understanding group behavior: Small
group processes and interpersonal relations 2, eds. by Witte and Davis, 227-253. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Hwang, Juck-Ryoon. 1975. Role of sociolinguistics in foreign language education with reference to Korean and
english terms of address and levels of deference. Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.
Ide, Sachiko, B. Hill, Y. M. Carnes, T. Ogino, A. Kawasaki. 1992. The concept of politeness: an empirical study
of American English and Japanese. Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, eds.
by R. Watts et al., 281-297. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ide, Sachiko, and G. Peng. 1995. Linguistic politeness in Chinese, Japanese and English from a socio-historical
perspective. Sociolinguistics 3:2, 3-15.
Jeon, Hyeo-Young. 2002. Gongsonui hwayonglon [Pragmatics of politeness]. Hwayonglon yeongoo [A study of
pragmatics], ed. by Lee Seong-Beom. 89-125. Seoul: Taehaksa.
Kochman, Thomas. 1981. Black and white styles in conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Koo, Ja Sook. 2000. Politeness theory: Universality and specificity. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI 2000.
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1972. Language in context. Language 48:4, 907-927.
-----. 1973. The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's. Proceedings of the ninth regional meeting of
the Chicago Linguistic Society, 292-305.
-----. 1975. Language and woman's place. New York: Harper and Row.
-----. 1977. What you can do with words: politeness, pragmatics, and performatives. Proceedings of the Texas
conference on performatives, presuppositions, and implicatures, 79-105. Arlington: Centre of Applied
Linguistics.
-----. 1979. Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. Language, sex and gender; Annals of the New York
Academy of Science 327, 53-78.
-----. 1989. The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua 8(2/3), 101-129.
-----. 1990. Talking power: the politics of language in our lives. Basic Books, A Division of Harper Collins
Publishers.
Leech, Geoffrey. N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Marquez-Reiter, Rosina. 2000. Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Co.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal
of Pragmatics 12, 403-426.
Mizutani, Osamu, and Nobuko Mizutani. 1987. How to be polite in Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Times.
Oakes, Penelope. 1996. The categorization process: cognition and the group in the social psychology of
stereotyping. Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel, ed. by W. P. Robinson,
95-119. Butterworth-Heinermann.
Oakes, Penelope., Haslam, and John C. Turner. 1994. Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford , UK; Cambridge,
USA: Blackwell.
Robinson, W. Peter. 1996. Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel,
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1974. Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. Academic Press.
Characteristics of Korean Politeness
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1984. Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13, 311-355.
Sifianou, Maria. 1992. Politeness phenomena in English and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. Oxford
University Press.
Sohn, Ho-min. 1988. Lingusitic devices of Korean politeness. Papers from the sixth international conference on
Korean linguistics, ed. by Back Eung-Jin, 655-669. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Tajfel, Henri. 1978. Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations.
Academic Press.
Tannen, Deborah. 1985. Cross-cultural communication. Handbook of discourse analysis, ed. by Teun van Dijk,
203-212. New York: Academic Press.
Trafimow, et al. 1991. Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 60, 649-655.
Trudgill, Peter. 1981. Linguistic accommodation: sociolinguistic observations on a sociopsychological theory.
Papers from the parasession on language and behavior, 218-237. Chicago Linguistic Society.
Turner, John C. 1991. Social influence. Open University Press.
Turner, John C. and Richard Y. Bourhis. 1996. Social identity, interdependence and the social group: a reply to
Rabbie et al. Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel, ed. by W. Peter.
Robinson, 25-63. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Turner, John C. et al. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin; New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
-----. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Yu, Kyong-Ae. 1999. Indirectness does not imply politeness in Korean. Linguistics in the morning calm 4:
Selected papers from SICOL-97, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 527-546. Seoul: Hanshin.
-----. 2002. Culture-specific concepts of politeness; the Korean concept of 'gongsonhada' is different from the
American English concept of 'polite' and from the Japanese concept of 'teineina'. Korean Journal of
Applied Linguistics 18:2, 41-60.
Yu Kyong-Ae
Faculty of General Education
Chung-Ang University
221 Heukseok-dong, dongjak-gu
Seoul (156-756)
Tel: 82-2-820-5702
E-mail: [email protected]
이 논문은 2003년 10월 30일 투고 완료되어
2003년 11월 1일부터 11월 27일까지 심사위원이 심사하고
2003년 11월 29일 편집위원 회의에서 게재 결정된 것임.