5 research outputs found

    Développement des activités pour l'enseignement du verbe français : chez les apprenants au lycée coréen

    No full text
    ν•™μœ„λ…Όλ¬Έ(석사) --μ„œμšΈλŒ€ν•™κ΅ λŒ€ν•™μ› :μ™Έκ΅­μ–΄κ΅μœ‘κ³Ό(λΆˆμ–΄μ „κ³΅),2007.Maste

    λΉ„μ˜ν™”μ™€ λ‹΄λ‘ μ˜ μ‹œμž‘

    No full text
    ν•™μœ„λ…Όλ¬Έ(석사) -- μ„œμšΈλŒ€ν•™κ΅λŒ€ν•™μ› : μΈλ¬ΈλŒ€ν•™ λ―Έν•™κ³Ό, 2022. 8. Peter W. Milne.λ³Έ 논문은 λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄μ˜ 초기 κ°œλ…μΈ β€œλΉ„μ˜ν™”β€(acinema)λ₯Ό, κ·Έκ°€ ν›„κΈ° λ…Όμ˜ λ‚΄μ—μ„œ μ–ΈκΈ‰ν•œ β€œμ•„λ°©κ°€λ₯΄λ“œβ€λ‘œ μ΄ν•΄ν•˜κ³ , γ€ŒλΉ„μ˜ν™”γ€μ—μ„œ μ˜ν™” λ…Όμ˜μ˜ μ‹œμž‘μ΄ λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄κ°€ β€œλΉ„μ˜ν™”β€λΌκ³  λΆ€λ₯΄λŠ” μ›€μ§μž„μœΌλ‘œλΆ€ν„° μ‹œμž‘λœλ‹€λŠ” 그의 언급을 μž¬ν•΄μ„ν•˜λŠ” 것을 λͺ©ν‘œλ‘œ ν•œλ‹€. μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ μž‘μ—…μ„ 톡해, λ³Έκ³ λŠ” λΉ„μ˜ν™”κ°€ μ˜ν™”λ…Όμ˜μ˜ μ‹œμž‘μ μ΄ λ˜λŠ” 것은 λ°”λ‘œ λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ₯Ό β€œλ°œμƒβ€(occurrence)으둜 μ΄ν•΄ν•¨μœΌλ‘œμ¨ κ°€λŠ₯ν•˜λ©°, μ—¬κΈ°μ„œ 더 λ‚˜μ•„κ°€ λΉ„μ˜ν™”λŠ” μ΅œμ’…μ μœΌλ‘œ μš°λ¦¬κ°€ μ‚¬μš©ν•˜λŠ” κ°œλ…μ  ν‹€κ³Ό 우리의 μ˜μ‹μ„ ν™•μž₯μ‹œν‚€λŠ” κ°œλ…μœΌλ‘œ μ΄ν•΄λ˜μ–΄μ•Ό ν•œλ‹€λŠ” 것을 μ£Όμž₯ν•œλ‹€. λ³Έκ³ κ°€ γ€ŒλΉ„μ˜ν™”γ€λ₯Ό λ…Όμ˜μ˜ 쀑심 ν…μŠ€νŠΈλ‘œ μ •ν•œ μ΄μœ λŠ” 이 에세이가 λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄μ˜ 첫 μ˜ν™” 에세이일 뿐만 μ•„λ‹ˆλΌ λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄κ°€ μ˜ν™”λ₯Ό 철학적이고 미학적인 κ΄€μ μ—μ„œ μˆ™κ³ ν•˜λ €κ³  μ‹œλ„ν•œ 의미 μžˆλŠ” μ—μ„Έμ΄μž„μ„ κ³ μ°°ν•˜κ³ μž 함이닀. λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄μ—κ²Œ μ˜ν™”λŠ”, μ˜λ―Έμ™€ μ˜λ―Έμž‘μš©μ—μ„œ 쀑단을 λ°œμƒμ‹œν‚€λŠ” μ›€μ§μž„, λ‹€μ‹œ λ§ν•˜λ©΄ λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ‘œλΆ€ν„° μ˜ν™”λ‹΄λ‘ μ΄ μ‹œμž‘λ  λ•Œ, 이둠에 λ„μ „ν•˜κ³  이둠을 무화 ν•˜λŠ” κ°€λŠ₯성을 κ°–λŠ”λ‹€. μ˜ν™”λ…Όμ˜κ°€ μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ μ›€μ§μž„μ— κΈ°μ΄ˆν•΄ μ‹œμž‘λ˜λŠ” 것은 우리의 κ²½ν—˜κ³Ό 지각을 λ„“νžˆλŠ” 기회λ₯Ό μ œκ³΅ν•œλ‹€. γ€ŒλΉ„μ˜ν™”γ€λŠ” λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄κ°€ 1973년에 μ“΄ 첫 μ˜ν™”μ—μ„Έμ΄μ΄λ‹€. 이 μ—μ„Έμ΄μ—μ„œ λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄κ°€ κ΅¬μƒν•œ λΉ„μ˜ν™”λŠ” μΌνƒˆμ μ΄κ³  μ‹€ν—˜μ μΈ μ›€μ§μž„μœΌλ‘œ, μ˜ν™”λ₯Ό κ΅¬μ„±ν•˜λŠ”λ° μ‚¬μš©λ˜λŠ” λͺ¨λ“  κ·œμΉ™, 예λ₯Ό λ“€λ©΄ μž¬ν˜„μ˜ κ·œμΉ™, λ‚΄λŸ¬ν‹°λΈŒμ˜ κ·œμΉ™ ν˜Ήμ€ μ˜ν™”μ΄λ‘  κ·œμΉ™μœΌλ‘œ μ„€λͺ…λ˜κ³  이해될 수 μ—†λŠ” μ›€μ§μž„μ΄λ‹€. λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄κ°€ λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ₯Ό 이런 μ›€μ§μž„μœΌλ‘œ κ΅¬μƒν•œ μ΄μœ λŠ”, κ·Έκ°€ 이 μΌνƒˆμ μ΄κ³  μ‹€ν—˜μ μΈ μ›€μ§μž„μœΌλ‘œλΆ€ν„° μ˜ν™”κ°€ μ˜ν™” λ‚΄μ—μ„œ μœ μ§€ν•˜κ³ μž ν•˜λŠ” μ§ˆμ„œλ₯Ό λ°©ν•΄ν•˜κ³  μ€‘λ‹¨μ‹œν‚¬ κ°€λŠ₯성을 보기 λ•Œλ¬Έμ΄λ‹€. μ—¬κΈ°μ„œ μ§ˆμ„œλž€ μ£Όλ₯˜ μž¬ν˜„μ -λ‚΄λŸ¬ν‹°λΈŒμ  μƒμ—…μ˜ν™”λ₯Ό μ‘°μ§ν•˜λŠ” 힘이고, μ£Όλ₯˜ μž¬ν˜„μ -λ‚΄λŸ¬ν‹°λΈŒμ  μƒμ—…μ˜ν™”κ°€ μ˜μ‚¬μ†Œν†΅ μ½”λ“œλ‘œμ¨ μœ μ§€ν•˜κ³  μž¬μƒμ‚°ν•˜κ³ μž ν•˜λŠ” 것이며, 이것은 κ²°κ΅­ μ‚¬μ‹€μ£Όμ˜μ˜ ν™˜μ˜μ„ λ§Œλ“œλŠ” 것이닀. γ€ŒλΉ„μ˜ν™”γ€μ—μ„œ λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄λŠ” μ˜ν™” μΌλ°˜μ— λŒ€ν•œ λ…Όμ˜κ°€ λΉ„μ˜ν™”μ—μ„œ μ‹œμž‘λœλ‹€κ³  μ–ΈκΈ‰ν•œλ‹€. λΉ„μ˜ν™”λŠ” μ˜ν™” 내에 μžˆμœΌλ©΄μ„œ μ˜ν™”μ™€ κ΄€λ ¨λœ λͺ¨λ“  κ·œμΉ™λ“€μ„ λ²—μ–΄λ‚˜λŠ”, λ‹€μ‹œ λ§ν•˜λ©΄ μ˜ν™” 내에 μ‘΄μž¬ν•  μžκ²©μ„ 갖좔지 λͺ»ν•œ μ›€μ§μž„μ΄λΌλŠ” μ˜λ―Έμ—μ„œ λΉ„μ˜ν™”μ΄λ‹€. μ˜ν™”λ…Όμ˜κ°€ μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ‘œλΆ€ν„° μ‹œμž‘λœλ‹€λŠ” 사싀은, μ˜ν™”λ‹΄λ‘ μ΄ 이둠에 μ˜μ‘΄ν•¨ 없이 μžμ‹ μ˜ λ…Όμ˜λ₯Ό μ‹œμž‘ν•˜λŠ” κ²ƒμœΌλ‘œ μ΄ν•΄λ˜μ–΄μ•Ό ν•œλ‹€. μ˜ν™”μ΄λ‘ μ€ 그듀이 μ„€μ •ν•˜κ³  μžˆλŠ” 논리λ₯Ό 톡해 λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ₯Ό μ΄ν•΄ν•˜κ±°λ‚˜ 해석할 수 μ—†λ‹€. 이 λ•Œ μ˜ν™”λ‹΄λ‘ μ€ λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ₯Ό 이둠을 톡해 ν•΄μ„ν•˜λŠ” λŒ€μ‹ , 이둠을 내렀놓고, λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ₯Ό μƒκ°ν•˜κ³  ν‘œν˜„ν•  μƒˆλ‘œμš΄ 방식을 κ³ μ•ˆν•˜λ©΄μ„œ, λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ₯Ό κΈ°μˆ ν•˜κ³  λ…Όμ˜ν•œλ‹€. λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ‘œλΆ€ν„° λ…Όμ˜λ₯Ό μ‹œμž‘ν•¨μœΌλ‘œμ¨ μ˜ν™”λ‹΄λ‘ μ€ μ΄λ‘ μœΌλ‘œλΆ€ν„° 그의 κΆŒμœ„λ₯Ό λ°•νƒˆν•˜κ³ , μƒˆλ‘œμš΄ λ‹΄λ‘ λ“€μ˜ κ°€λŠ₯성을 μ—΄κ³ , κ·Έλ ‡κ²Œ ν•¨μœΌλ‘œμ¨ λ‹΄λ‘ μ˜ 경계 ν˜Ήμ€ 이둠의 경계λ₯Ό ν™•μž₯ν•  기회λ₯Ό 가진닀. μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ 해석은 λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄κ°€ 그의 λ§ˆμ§€λ§‰ μ˜ν™” 에세이인 γ€Œμ£ΌκΆŒμ  μ˜ν™”λΌλŠ” μ΄λ°μ•„γ€μ—μ„œ λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ₯Ό β€œμ˜ν™”μ  μ•„λ°©κ°€λ₯΄λ“œμ˜ μž‘μ—…β€μœΌλ‘œ μ†Œν™˜ν•œ 것을 톡해 κ°€λŠ₯해진닀. λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄μ˜ 이 언급에 κΈ°μ΄ˆν•΄, λΉ„μ˜ν™”λŠ” κ·Έκ°€ β€œλ°œμƒβ€μ΄λΌκ³  λΆ€λ₯΄λŠ” κ²ƒμœΌλ‘œ 이해될 수 있고, 그둜 인해 λΉ„μ˜ν™”λŠ” μΈκ°„μ˜ μ˜μ‹μœΌλ‘œ κ·Έ μ˜μ—­μ„ ν™•μž₯ν•œλ‹€. λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄μ—κ²Œ μ•„λ°©κ°€λ₯΄λ“œλŠ” λͺ¨λ”λ‹ˆν‹° 내에 ν•¨μΆ•λœ μ „μ œλ“€μ— λŒ€ν•œ μΌμ’…μ˜ νƒκ΅¬λΌλŠ” μ˜λ―Έμ—μ„œ 철학적 탐ꡬ이며, 이 μ•„λ°©κ°€λ₯΄λ“œμ˜ μž‘μ—…μœΌλ‘œμ„œ λ°œμƒμ€ μΈκ°„μ˜ μ˜μ‹μ— μ˜ν•΄ κ²°μ •λ˜κΈ° μ „μ˜ β€œμΌμ–΄λ‚¨β€ ν˜Ήμ€ β€œμΌμ–΄λ‚˜λŠ” 것”(what happens)이며, 이 μž‘μ—…μ€ κ°œλ…μ  ν‹€ λ°–μ—μ„œ λ°œμƒν•œλ‹€. λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ₯Ό μ˜ν™”μ  μ•„λ°©κ°€λ“œλ₯΄μ˜ μž‘μ—…, λ°œμƒμœΌλ‘œ μ–ΈκΈ‰ν•˜λ©΄μ„œ, λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄λŠ” λΉ„μ˜ν™”μ˜ μ˜μ—­μ„ μΈκ°„μ˜ μ˜μ‹, 지각, κ²½ν—˜μœΌλ‘œ ν™•μž₯ν•œλ‹€. λ°œμƒμœΌλ‘œμ„œ λΉ„μ˜ν™”λŠ” 의미의 λΆ€μž¬λ‘œμ„œ 의미λ₯Ό μ€‘λ‹¨ν•œλ‹€. λΉ„μ˜ν™”μ˜ νž˜μ€ 그것이 의미λ₯Ό 가지지 μ•ŠλŠ”λ‹€λŠ” 사싀에 μžˆλ‹€. μš°λ¦¬κ°€ 이둠을 톡해 λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ‘œλΆ€ν„° 의미λ₯Ό λŒμ–΄λ‚΄κ³ μž ν•  λ•Œ, λΉ„μ˜ν™”μ˜ νž˜μ„ 사라진닀. μ™œλƒν•˜λ©΄ λΉ„μ˜ν™”κ°€ 이둠에 μ˜ν•΄ ν•΄μ„λœλ‹€λŠ” 것은 우리의 μ˜μ‹μ— μ˜ν•΄ μ˜λ―Έκ°€ 정해지고 κ·œμ •λœλ‹€λŠ” 것을 μ˜λ―Έν•˜κΈ° λ•Œλ¬Έμ΄λ‹€. λΉ„μ˜ν™”λŠ” 항상 μ˜μ‹μ— μ˜ν•΄ κ·œμ •λ˜μ§€ μ•ŠλŠ” 것이고, κ·Έλ‘œλΆ€ν„° 그의 의미λ₯Ό κ°–λŠ”λ‹€. λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄μ—κ²Œ 이둠은, 그것이 비둝 세계λ₯Ό μ΄ν•΄ν•˜κΈ° μœ„ν•΄ μ˜μ‹μ— μ˜ν•΄ λ§Œλ“€μ–΄μ§„ κ²ƒμ΄μ§€λ§Œ, μš°λ¦¬κ°€ 세계λ₯Ό 보고 λ“£κ³  μ΄ν•΄ν•˜κΈ° 전에 세계λ₯Ό 미리 κ²°μ •ν•¨μœΌλ‘œμ¨ 였히렀 우리의 지각과 κ²½ν—˜μ„ μ œν•œν•œλ‹€. λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄λŠ” 이둠이 그의 ν•œκ³„λ₯Ό μΈμ •ν•˜λŠ” 것을 λ°°μ›Œμ•Ό ν•œλ‹€κ³  μ£Όμž₯ν•œλ‹€. λ¦¬μ˜€νƒ€λ₯΄κ°€ μ˜ν™”λ…Όμ˜κ°€ λΉ„μ˜ν™”μ—μ„œ μ‹œμž‘λœλ‹€κ³  말할 λ•Œ, κ·Έκ°€ κΈ°λŒ€ν•˜λŠ” 것은 μ˜ν™”λ…Όμ˜κ°€ λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ₯Ό 톡해 이둠을 λ¬΄ν™”ν•˜κ³ , λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ μ˜ν™”λ‹΄λ‘ μ„ μ°½μ•ˆν•˜λŠ” 것이닀. λΉ„μ˜ν™”λŠ” λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ νƒ€μžκ°€ 곡쑴할 수 μžˆμŒμ„ ν•¨μΆ•ν•œλ‹€. λ³Έ 논문은 μ˜ν™” 에세이 γ€ŒλΉ„μ˜ν™”γ€μ™€ λΉ„μ˜ν™” κ°œλ…μ„ 철학적이고 미학적인 λ§₯λ½μ—μ„œ λ‹€μ‹œ 읽어야 함을 μ£Όμž₯ν•œλ‹€. λΉ„μ˜ν™”λŠ” λ°œμƒμœΌλ‘œμ„œ μ΄ν•΄λ˜μ–΄μ•Ό ν•˜κ³ , λ”°λΌμ„œ μ˜μ‹μ΄ μ§€κΈˆκΉŒμ§€ μ •μ˜ν•˜κ³  μœ μ§€ν•΄μ˜¨ μ „μ œλ“€μ— λ„μ „ν•˜κ³  μ˜λ¬Έμ„ μ œκΈ°ν•˜λŠ” κ²ƒμœΌλ‘œ μ΄ν•΄λ˜μ–΄μ•Ό ν•œλ‹€. λͺ¨λ“  μ˜ν™”μ œμž‘ κ·œμΉ™κ³Ό 이둠적 κ·œμΉ™μ€ μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ μ „μ œλ“€μ΄λ©°, μ˜ν™”λ‹΄λ‘ μ΄ λΉ„μ˜ν™”λ‘œλΆ€ν„° μ‹œμž‘λ  λ•Œ, μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ μ „μ œλ“€μ€ λ¬΄ν™”λ˜κ³ , λΉ„νŒλ˜κ³ , μ˜λ¬Έμ‹œλœλ‹€. 이것은 κ·Έλ™μ•ˆ λ…Όμ˜μ—μ„œ μ œμ™Έλ˜μ—ˆλ˜ 견해와 관점듀을 λ°›μ•„λ“€μ΄λŠ” 것이고, 이λ₯Ό 톡해 우리의 κ²½ν—˜μ μ΄κ³  지각적인 지평을 λ„“νžˆλŠ” κ°€λŠ₯성을 μ œμ‹œν•˜λŠ” 것이닀.This thesis aims to understand Lyotard’s early concept of β€œacinema” in terms of his later understanding of β€œthe avant-garde” and to reexamine Lyotard’s remark in the essay β€˜Acinema’ that the discussion of cinema starts from the movements he calls β€œacinema.” Through this, I will argue that it is by understanding acinema as an β€œoccurrence” that it becomes the starting point of this discussion, and further that acinema must be understood as a concept that opens and expands our conceptual framework and our consciousness. Therefore, the reason this study takes β€˜Acinema’ as the central text of the discussion is to investigate that it is not only Lyotard’s first film essay but also a significant essay where Lyotard attempts to reflect on cinema from a philosophical and aesthetic point of view. For him, cinema has the possibility to challenge and undo theory when the movements act as the starting point of a film discourse, despite the movements themselves lacking meaning and signification. This initiation of discussion based on the movements can give the chance to broaden our experience and perception. β€˜Acinema’ is the first film essay by Lyotard in 1973. Acinema that Lyotard conceives in this essay is deviant and experimental movement which escapes from and experiments with the rules, such as those of representation, narrative and theory, which organize movements in a prescribed manner to produce sense of order in cinema. Lyotard conceives acinema in this manner because he sees the possibility of interrupting the order within cinema through this deviant and experimental movement. The order here is the one by which mainstream representational-narrative commercial cinema is organized and which it tried to maintain and reproduce as communication code, which produces the fantasy of realism. In this essay, Lyotard remarks that the discussion of cinema in general begins with acinema. Acinema is non-cinema in that it is within cinema as an unqualified concept, out of all the rules related to cinema. The fact that the discussion of cinema starts from non-cinema should be interpreted as the fact that film discourse begins its discussion without theory. It means that theory cannot understand and interpret acinema through its principle, and then film discourse describes and comments on acinema, instead of interpreting it through a theory, letting go of the theory and creating new manner of thinking and expressing it. By starting its discussion from acinema, film discourse ends the authority of theory and opens the possibility of new film discourses, thereby expanding its boundaries. This interpretation is possible because Lyotard summons acinema as β€œthe work of the cinematic avant-garde” in his last film essay β€˜The Idea of a Sovereign Film.’ Based on this remark, acinema can be seen something like what he calls an β€œoccurrence” and thereby its scope extends to our consciousness. For Lyotard, the avant-garde is a kind of philosophical inquiry in that it is a kind of investigation of the presuppositions implied in modernity, and occurrence as the work of the avant-garde is what happens before being determined by consciousness and thereby such work takes place outside of conceptual framework. Referring to acinema as the work of the cinematic avant-garde and an β€œoccurrence,” Lyotard broadens the scope of acinema deep into our consciousness, perception and experience. Acinema as an occurrence interrupts the meaning as the absence of signification. Its force lies in the fact that it has no meaning. When we try to draw the meaning from acinema through theory which is the method that the consciousness makes to understand the world, its force disappears because the fact that acinema is interpreted by theory means that it becomes β€œdeterminate” by the consciousness. Acinema is always the indeterminate to the consciousness and from this it has its meaning. For Lyotard, theory, although being made by the consciousness in order to understand the world, limits our perception and experience by determining what we have to see and hear in advance. Lyotard argues that theory has to learn to acknowledge its limitation. When Lyotard states that the discussion of cinema begins with acinema, what he means and expects is for such a discussion to undo theory through acinema and create various and diverse film discourses. Acinema as non-cinema implies the possibility of coexistence of various others. This thesis argues that the essay of β€˜Acinema’ and the concept of acinema should be read again in a philosophical and aesthetic context. This means that acinema should be understood as an occurrence, as Lyotard remarked, challenges and questions the presuppositions that the consciousness has defined and maintained so far. All filmmaking rules and theoretical rules are presuppositions, and when the film discourse starts from acinema, these presuppositions are undone, criticized, and called into question. That means accepting those opinions and perspectives that have been excluded from the discussion and opening the door to broaden our experiential and perceptional horizon.Introduction 1 1. Acinema interrupting the rules of representation 17 1.1. Experimental and deviant movements 19 1.2. An idea to explain experimental films 29 1.3. The beginning of film discourse: describing acinema 34 2. Acinema interrupting the rules of narrative and the theory 43 2.1. The interruption to narrative 45 2.2. Rejection of conceptualization and theorization 54 2.3. The beginning of film discourse: learning from acinema 59 3. Acinema as the cinematic avant-garde 63 3.1. An occurrence that calls the rules into question 66 3.2. Sovereign indifference to authority 75 3.3. The beginning of film discourse: undoing program 81 Conclusion 88 Bibliography 97 ꡭ문초둝 100석
    corecore