ScholarWorks@숙명여자대학교

초록

This study investigates the use of engagement resources in COVID-19-related Korean and English editorials, drawing on Martin and White’s (2005) Engagement Theory. It examines how editorial writers use language to maintain their stance and persuade readers, with particular attention to ideological differences within each language and culture. The findings reveal the effective use of both monoglossic and heteroglossic voices across all editorials, shaped by the editorial genre and the shared context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Across both languages and cultures, writers employ dialogic contraction strategies through heteroglossic voices to either criticize or defend leaders and governments. Moreover, the study finds that the use of engagement resources varies according to each society’s political and social contexts, as well as the author’s political stance, with heteroglossic voices being especially prominent. The results also indicate that within the same language and culture, engagement strategies differ depending on political ideology. In addition, the findings indicate that Korean and English editorials generally employ similar mechanisms to criticize or defend their respective governments based on ideological orientation. However, the analysis revealed some differences, which appear to reflect the distinctive social environments of each country during the COVID-19 era. In conclusion, the patterns of appraisal resources use in Korean and English editorials show both similarities, driven by the shared purpose of persuading the public during the COVID-19 crisis and ideological divides, and differences, shaped by the specific circumstances each society faced during the pandemic. This suggests that the study’s findings can be understood through Halliday and Matthiessen(2014)’s concept of the ‘cline of instantiation’.

키워드