This paper uses a corpus of 14 hours of recorded interactions to analyze the “normative” and “strategic” honorifics usage of speakers of Korean as a second language. I define “normative” honorifics as usage that reflects recognized “power”, “distance” and “formality” factors. “Strategic” honorifics usage breaks from these norms, is pragmatically “marked” and is motivated by interactional goals. Previous studies into the honorifics usage of speakers of Korean as a second language focus on analysis of “errors” judged against prescriptive norms. However, the current paper adopts an interactional socio-pragmatic perspective and looks at the ideology and specific intentions that underlie second language usage. According to my data, in comparison with native interaction, second language speaker discourse displays less variation according to normative factors but may show more marked strategic alterations. Regarding normative usage, speakers prefer to establish equal relationships and minimize “power” differences. As for strategic use, speakers may alternate honorific levels according to the sensitivity of the situation or the illocutionary force of particular utterances. I explain these differences with reference to conflicting ideologies as to language usage between Korean and “Western” cultures, prevalent during the interview process. I conclude the paper by discussing the implications for Korean applied linguistics.
Historically, the main focus of the study of housing in advanced economies has been on houses that meet the accommodation needs of households: houses as the main residence of families. In recent decades there has been the growth in the numbers of houses used for purposes other than as a main residence, for example in the forms of the recent global spread of Airbnb and of foreign engagement in housing as an investment tool; alongside a set of ‘for housing’ houses (FHH) another, overlapping, set of ‘not for housing’ houses (NFHH) is emerging. The present paper begins by identifying four types of NFHH, and considers the significance of their growth. It argues that while the NFHH sector is relatively small it has large impacts, and these are such that they challenge housing researchers and policy makers to develop additional ways of looking at housing systems.
Lutz Klinkhammer Tato stať, kterou v časopise Soudobé dějiny pokračuje seriál o vývoji a dnešním stavu disciplíny soudobých dějin ve vybraných evropských zemích, původně vyšla pod názvem „Novecento statt Storia contemporanea: Überlegungen zur italienischen Zeitgeschichte“ a je převzata ze sborníku editorů Alexandra Nützenadela a Wolfganga Schiedera Zeitgeschichte als Problem: Nationale Traditionen und Perspektiven der Forschung in Europa (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, s. 107–127). Autor uvádí, že pojem „soudobé dějiny“ pro označení vyhraněné disciplíny historického bádání, jako je tomu v Německu nebo ve Francii, nemá v Itálii zřetelnou obdobu. Termín storia contemporanea zde měl po roce 1945 trojí význam. Jednak se užíval jako pojmenování dějinného úseku zhruba posledních dvou století, dále pro časově kratší období „krátkého 20. století“ (novecento) a konečně sloužil k charakteristice jakékoli historické události v jejím „soudobém“ rozměru, tedy její instrumentalizace podle aktuálních (politických či jiných) potřeb. Tyto významy autor ilustruje jednak na příkladech přehledů a učebnic italských dějin, jednak na aktuálních sporech o historické činy papežů a katolické církve, o světla a stíny italského národního sjednocení v šedesátých letech 19. století a údajnou levicovou ideologizaci poválečného italského dějepisectví. V něm se zrodil „mýtus rezistence“ proti německé okupaci z let 1943 až 1945, jehož rubem byla marginalizace, či dokonce tabuizace italského fašismu, a který odpovídal zájmům širokospektrální protifašistické koalice politických sil v Itálii. S hlubším výzkumem italského fašismu se začalo až v šedesátých letech. Od devadesátých let pak podle autora trvají ostré spory o hodnocení odboje (včetně komunistických zločinů) a fašistické republiky ze Salò, v nichž je patrná snaha o „plíživou rehabilitaci“ fašistické minulosti a které by svědčily pro tezi, že italské soudobé dějiny ve vlastním smyslu začínají rokem 1943. and This article, which is one of a series in Soudobé dějiny on the development of the discipline of contemporary history and its current state in selected countries of Europe, was originally published as “Novecento statt Storia contemporanea? Überlegungen zur italienischen Zeitgeschichte” in Alexander Nützenadel and Wolfgang Schieder (eds), Zeitgeschichte als Problem: Nationale Traditionen und Perspektiven der Forschung in Europa (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004, pp. 107–27). The author argues that in Italy, unlike Germany or France, there is no distinct term for “contemporary history” to denote this clearly defined discipline of historical research. The term storia contemporanea had three meanings since 1945. First, it was used to denote an historical period of roughly the last two centuries. Second, it meant only the “short” twentieth century (il novecento). Last, the term served to denote any historical event in its “contemporary” dimension, that is to say, its instrumentalization according to current needs, political or otherwise. The author illustrates these meanings by providing examples from surveys and textbooks of Italian history and from current debates on the historical actions of the popes and the Roman Catholic Church, the bright and dark sides of Italian unifi cation in the 1860s, and the alleged left-wing ideologization of post-war Italian historiography. In this historiography was born the “myth of resistance” to the German occupation of 1943–45, the other side of which was the marginalization of Italian Fascism or even its being made taboo. This corresponded to the interests of the broad anti-Fascist political coalition in Italy. More penetrating research into Italian Fascism did not begin to appear till the 1960s. Since the 1990s, according to the author, there have been fierce disagreements in assessments of the resistance (including Communist crimes) and the Nazi-puppet state known as the Salò Republic, in which there has been an evident endeavour to achieve the “creeping rehabilitation” of the Fascist past, which would speak in support of the argument that Italian contemporary history really begins in 1943.