Earticle

This study compared news related to ‘education’ and ‘learning’ reported on KBS News 7 and NHK News 7 during the first half of 2025. By doing so, it examined how the public broadcasting systems of South Korea and Japan portray education and learning, and what cultural values and linguistic customs underlie their modes of expression. The analysis revealed that while both broadcasters addressed ‘education’ within the macroscopic framework of institutions, policies, budgets, and politics, there were distinct differences in the way they deployed this framework and the meaning they assigned to ‘learning’. KBS tended to frame education as a ‘sphere of institution, management, and competition’, whereas NHK News showed a strong tendency to construct education as a ‘sphere of life, narrative, and welfare’. This is considered to reflect differences in the cultural value systems of the two countries. In essence, the two public broadcasters convey the same concepts of ‘education’ and ‘learning’ but reveal different underlying social values, linguistic perspectives, and cultural viewpoints. Notably, a key finding was the concrete demonstration that the distinction between ‘Gakushu(学習)’ and ‘Manabi(学び), a concept discussed in the fields of pedagogy and philosophy, consistently functioned at the level of vocabulary use and framing in NHK’s public broadcast news―a mass and everyday media text. In NHK News 7, ‘Gakushu’ was associated with institutionalized curricula and exam preparation, such as national curriculum guidelines or online learning, while ‘Manabi’ was selectively used to depict scenes of individual internal experience and ethical/existential growth, such as experiences of disaster, illness, or lessons concerning peace and environmental issues.

This study conducted a comparative analysis of the news broadcasts of NHK and KBS, the public broadcasters representing Japan and South Korea, respectively. By examining the themes and formats of the news covered by both broadcasters, the study explores the differences between Japanese and Korean public broadcasting and identifies the characteristics and direction of news reporting in both countries. In particular, the study compares the content, reporting methods, and attitudes of both countries, focusing on political news. In South Korea, social and political news make up a very large proportion of the coverage, indicating that South Korean broadcasts attract viewers' attention through the emphasis on social issues. While Japan tends to delve deeply into a smaller number of topics, South Korea tends to convey a variety of issues through brief news items. Japan prioritizes the coverage of social issues and international news, whereas South Korea tends to prioritize political news. This can be attributed to the influence of South Korea's political interests on society and the high level of political engagement among its citizens. In political news, South Korea tends to use negative and provocative language in news titles or citations, emphasizing a critical and negative context regarding political situations and issues, and highlighting conflicts and divisions between the ruling and opposition parties. In contrast, Japan tends to use words that emphasize cooperative and achievable positive changes, showing restraint in emotional expression and striving to maintain neutrality. Japan also continuously reports on interviews with the Prime Minister, aiming to objectively convey government policies and official positions.

本研究は韓国と日本を代表する公営放送であるNHKとKBSのニュースを比較分析 した。両国放送が扱うニュースの主題と形式を通じて日韓公営放送間の差を考察し、 これに基づいて両国ニュース報道の特徴と方向を導き出した。特に政治ニュースを中 心に、両国放送の報道内容と方式、そして報道の態度を比較した。 両国はともに社会、政治、国際ニュースを主に扱っているが、特に韓国は社会と 政治ニュースが全体ニュースの67%を占め、非常に大きな比重を示している。これは 韓国の放送が社会的イシューに焦点を合わせて報道しており、このようなイシュー強 調を通じて視聴者の関心を集めていることを示している。日本は相対的に少ない数の 主題を深層的に扱う傾向がある反面、韓国は主に単身報道で多様なイシューを伝達す る傾向がある。日本は社会的イシューと国際ニュースを優先報道する反面、韓国は政 治ニュースを優先報道する傾向があるが、これは韓国の政治的関心が社会に及ぼす影 響力、国民の高い政治的関心度と関連があると言える。 政治ニュースで韓国は否定的で刺激的な単語をニュースタイトルに使用したり引 用したりしながら、政治的状況やイシューに対して批判的で否定的な脈絡を強調し、 与野党間の対立と葛藤を浮き彫りにする傾向がある。日本は協力的で実現可能な肯定 的な変化を強調する単語を使って感情的な表現を自制し中立性を維持しようとする傾 向を見せる。日本はまた、首相のインタビューを持続的に報道し、政府の政策や公式 立場を客観的に伝えようとしている。 韓国の公共放送が正しい方向に進んでいるかを評価するために、日本との比較が より明確な基準を提供できると思う。日本は報道の公正性と信頼性の面で韓国と差別 化された評価を受けており、これは韓国放送の改善方向を模索するのに役立つだろ う。したがって、両国の放送の比較分析は重要な意義を持ち、今後も継続的な研究が 必要であると考える。

This paper focused on verbs that are difficult to distinguish as they can be replaced by single verbs and ‘tori + single verbs’ in the Korean language but are considered to be highly necessary in Japanese language education. This study examined the types of meaning expressed by the preceding verb ‘toru’. The meaning of the preceding verb ‘toru’ can be broadly divided into two: (1) to grab and move to another place, and (2) to take over. The meanings of (1) or (2) is added, which makes it clear that the meaning is more limited than when the latter verb is used alone. As for type (1), the addition of the verb ‘toru’ to the preceding clause adds the meaning “grabbing and moving to another place”. This research shows that this is limited to meanings with elements such as “move to a place”, “bring something that is not there”, and “hold something that is not in your hand”. As for type (2), the addition of the verb ‘toru’ in the preceding clause adds the meaning of “undertaking”, and with this, the compound verb ‘tori-’ becomes “carefully/politely” and “reformed according to the order/method”. It was revealed that the meaning is limited to having elements such as “formally after discussing with multiple people”.

In Japanese, “wakeda” has various meanings. It is difficult to use the word right without understanding its meanings enough. Foreign learners of Japanese thus misuse the word often. It is no exception with Korean learners of Japanese, who misuse “wakeda” a lot, which indicates that “wakeda” is in a difficult form for Korean learners to use. Text authors need to understand the semantic uses of “wakeda” right first and offer basic example sentences for its four different semantic uses based on their understanding so that learners can understand the meanings of “wakeda” right. The current Japanese texts used in high schools and colleges, however, provide no content that is satisfying both in quantity and quality. This study proposes that future Japanese texts should define the meanings of “wakeda” as follows and provide easy and balanced learning methods based on their typical examples:

There is no overemphasizing fairness in paper reviews since they are related to contributors’ life as researchers. The fairness of a review system can be guaranteed by the organization, management, and quality of a judging panel. The review system should first be improved. A review should identify a high-quality paper rather than fairness in the process. In the current system, many judges select a paper to be published in a journal based on their subjective criteria that lacked in consistency. Their review tendencies determine which papers are to be published, which means that there is no guarantee of fairness in the review system. A judging panel should be comprised of experts with professionalism in the concerned field. Their reviews should be acceptable to restore their authority and reliability. The editorial panel should consist of members whose qualification is recognized objectively. That is, a small number of judges with their respective abilities in the concerned fields should be held accountable for their reviews in the system. The National Research Foundation of Korea needs to abolish the system of managing societies and mass-producing papers under the pretext of research supports and ensure that normal papers should be produced from normal academic activities. In this way, the number of societies can be restored to the normal level. Research activities for the honor of societies and individuals rather than those forced by the demand of research foundations can lead to the true development of study.

論文の審査は投稿者の立場からすると研究者生命にかかわる問題で公正性の重要性はいくら強調しても強調しすぎることはないはずである。公平な審査制度を確保するためには審査委員の構成や運営のみならず、審査委員の質も保証されなければならない。 そのためにはまず審査制度の改善が必要である。審査には過程の公正性より質のいい論文を世に送り出す役割が求められるべきである。多くの審査委員が一貫性の欠ける主観的な判断基準で判定した審査結果を並べて、その中から論文の掲載を決定する今のシステムは審査委員の審査傾向によって掲載可否が決定されてしまい、審査制度の公正性を求めることはできないであろう。 審査委員の構成も納得の行く審査が行われ、権威と信頼を取り戻せるものにすべきである。そのためには客観的に資格が認められる編集委員を構成することである。つまり、分野別に能力のある少数の審査委員が責任を持って審査できるシステムを構築することである。審査委員の構成で該当分野の専門性を持った者が納得できる審査を行い、権威と信頼を取り戻すことができるようにしなければならないだろう。 研究を支援するという名目で論文を量産させるシステムを廃止し、正常な学術活動を通じて正常な論文が世に出るようにしなければならない。そうなれば学会の数も正常に戻るであろう。研究財団の要求に強制される研究活動ではなく学会と個人の名誉のために行う研究活動であってこそ真の学問の発展につながるであろう。

This study set out to examine current teaching materials for Japanese and investigate whether their composition and presentation methods for “wakeda” would be proper to promote their right understanding among Korean learners of Japanese. Even though it was an examination within a limited scope, its findings point out that the study materials were so far from enough that the accurate understanding and acquisition of “wakeda” would be impossible. Korean learners of Japanese need to understand the meanings and uses of “wakeda” in an accurate manner to use them with ease. The present study defined the meanings of “wakeda” and provided its typical examples, proposing learning methods based on “wakeda”. Most Korean learners of Japanese have a difficult time with the modality form, one of the grammar areas that pose a challenge to them. The present study conducted field analysis of “wakeda” sentences considered to have a very high difficulty level and emphasized once more the need for education on “wakeda”.

本稿では、現在の日本語文法教材の検討を通じて、｢わけだ｣についての教材の構成及びその提示方法が韓国人日本語学習者の正しい理解を求める上に、問題がないかを確認してみた。限られた範囲内での検討であったが,少なくとも本稿の調べでは文法教材を通じて｢わけだ｣文の正確な理解及び習得が不可能なぐらい不足していることを指摘せざるを得ない。日本語で非常に頻繁に使われている｢わけだ｣を韓国人学習者が正しく使える教育内容にすることができなければ、日本語教育はアンバランスな学習につながるしかないのであろう。 韓国人日本語学習者が｢わけだ｣を簡単に使うためには｢わけだ｣の意味·用法を正確に理解する必要があるが、本稿では｢わけだ｣の意味を規定し、それに該当する典型的な例を提供して｢わけだ｣を通した学習方法を提示した。話者の心的態度を表すのがモダリティ形式｢わけだ｣の表す意味であり、日常の対話の中に頻繁に現れる。｢わけだ｣はある状況から当然に導き出される結論を提示する表現であるが、それらを｢帰結1－原因･理由｣｢帰結2－結果｣｢納得｣｢再確認｣のように四つの意味で規定し、それに該当する｢わけだ｣の用例を教材に適切に配置すことは｢わけだ｣の学習のための最小限の条件であると思う。 本稿では、韓国人日本語学習の文法教材を対象にして｢わけだ｣の学習内容が明確に行われているかどうかの検討を通じて、日本語文法教材の問題点について記述し、その改善案を提案した。特に、難易度が非常に高いと思われる｢わけだ｣に対する現場分析を通じて｢わけだ｣教育の必要性を改めて強調するきっかけとなったと思う。

This paper presents an investigation into the use of broadcasting language in Japan and Korea based on their respective news coverage. The broadcasting language of Japan keeps the principle of using polite language today and maintains the language system right and also its stability and grace as a broadcasting language. The broadcasting language of Korea, on the other hand, has prominent uses of language whose politeness has been dropping and decreases in its stability and grace as a broadcasting language. Improper language uses can make the audience feel resistant and antagonistic and have bad influences on the language use of people. There are several causes here. The study found that the confusion of Korea’s broadcasting language reflected undesirable rapid social changes to the South Korean society. They include changes to parents’ attitudes of educating their children, changes to the viewpoints of education to cause the collapse of public education, changes to teacher-student relations, inclination of gender among teachers providing school education, changes to their sense of duty, and lack of education on language due to these changes. Those who received the education made a career in the society and worked in the Korean broadcasting sector, contributing to the circumstances of today. Let alone the confusion in the language use of the young generation, there are many errors in the use of honorifics by young announcers and hosts in broadcasting. There is also a disorder in the right use of broadcasting language. These findings raise a need for more careful attention to the language of broadcasting news that has great impacts on the language life of people and further reinforcement of language education, especially honorific education in school education.

There is considerable similarity in the grammar structure and linguistic form between Korean and Japanese, but their corresponding relations are complex due to both similarities and differences in the end of sentence form such as “Noda” and “Wakeda” that are modality forms. It is difficult to figure out the meanings of grammar forms right in which there is no one-to-one correspondence between Korean and Japanese and further not simple at all to translate them. Unless there is the right understanding of semantic differences between “Noda” and “Wakeda,” both of which exhibit a mental attitude, it will be difficult to translate them into Korean clearly. The judgment will depend on whether to take a linguistic perspective that translation should reflect the meanings of every word clearly or a practice one that translation should suffice to deliver overall meanings. There is, however, a basic need to be loyal to vocabulary during translation even in the position that translation should suffice to deliver meanings. If there is, in particular, the intention of the speaker(writer) that has chosen the form, his or her intention should be respected. The translations of “Wakeda” into Korean have been arbitrary mostly, and its original meanings have not been reflected right in many cases. There may be many different ways to translate it, but its translations into Korean must reflect its meanings of conclusion, understanding or substitution in order to convey its meanings correctly. It is necessary to make use of sentence-ending particles, adverbs, conjunctions, and exclamations to accompany “것이다” in the translation of “Wakeda” into Korean as well as “것이다” alone. If one assumes there will be no big differences in Korean sentences according to its translation and accordingly chooses to omit its translation in moderation or be liberal with its translation, he or she will fail to convey the intention of the speaker(writer) and contribute to the decreased literary value of literary works through the simplification of its meanings.

In general, “WAKEDA” represents a conclusion that is drawn as something natural from a ground. It takes the form of “WAKE” in interrogative sentences during conversations, and “WAKE” has different forms and meanings from “WAKEDA” in such a case. Previous studies reported that “WAKE” in the interrogative form had no semantic differences from “WAKEDA” representing the concluding, convincing, and paraphrasing nature. “WAKEDA” is originally a form to state a conclusion drawn from certain objective information or a fact concluded from some information. It is not used in cases of raising a question about something. Discussed in the study, “WAKE” represents the negative feeling of the speaker in the form of doubt inherent in an interrogative sentences when he or she draws a natural conclusion from the statement, attitude or act of the listener during a conversation and is not convinced of the conclusion. “WAKE” in interrogative sentences can be understood as the noun “WAKE” from a morphological perspective, but it represents making a connection from a semantic perspective. Its polite version is “Wakedesuka”, and its normal version is “WAKE”, based on which it is estimated that “WAKE” with the interrogative postposition “Ka” omitted is used as an interrogative form in interrogative sentences with the normal version. At a first glance, it may seem logically contradicting to express a fact concluded as something natural from the information that already exists in the form of interrogative sentences, but the interrogative form of “WAKE” is not to express a result accepted as something natural but a strong feeling of doubt that the speaker has about the result.

The thesis says a study of the replacement possibility about ｢wakeda｣ & ｢hazuda｣ and the semantic relation as ｢wakeda｣ replaces with｢hazuda｣, vice versa. ｢wakeda｣is an expression concluding a definite fact and｢hazuda｣is an expression conjecturing an unrisen or uncertain fact. The two expressions cannot be replaced to do generally, because it’s unnatural if sure judged something is used as conjecture. However, the thesis finds similar cases about the two expressions on the base of assurance. In brief, it’s possible, that the conclusion cases show the conjecture cases. In these cases have the replacement possibility. In case that the relations between P and Q don’t have difference in meaning, ｢ wakeda｣ & ｢hazuda｣ can show from a concluded expression to a conjectured expression. A concluded expression and conjectured expression appear subjective judgements. In case to select anything but the results are same, the two expressions are close in meaning. As ｢wakeda｣&｢hazuda｣is accepted, it’s possible to exchange each other because the two types are close. The concluding a definite fact and the conjecturing an unrisen or uncertain fact are not close expression. Consequently, there are a little bit similarities. The exchange of ｢wakeda｣ & ｢hazuda｣ is characteristic meaning. The exchange of ｢wakeda｣ & ｢hazuda｣ that show causes and results and so on has separate meaning.

｢わけだ｣文は、関連づけを表し、一般的に関連づけられる先行文との関係からその意味が捉えられる。しかし、｢わけだ｣文と関連づけられる先行文が直接に現れていない場合があり、それが「わけだ｣文の特殊な意味を表すものとして扱うべきかの問題がある。また、｢わけだ｣文が表す当然な帰結とは客観的に位置づけられるものであるが、それが主観的に位置づけられる場合などがあり、先行研究の捉え方からでは｢わけだ｣文の意味を正しく捉えられない。本稿では、先行文が直接に現れていない「わけだ｣文の意味を捉えるために、先行文というものをどう位置づけるべきかについて記述した。また、話し手が主観的に位置づける「わけだ｣文の意味を捉えるために、先行文から導き出される当然な帰結という意味をどう解釈すべきかについて記述した。｢先行文｣というのは「わけだ｣文になるための情報や根拠として働いていればよく、つまり、何かの文脈であってもよいのであって、それが「先行文｣として「わけだ｣文の前に存在する必要は必ずしもないのである。文脈とは、明示的に現れていない事実でも、一般に通用する常識でも、かまわないのであって、こうした文脈も「わけだ｣文の先行文としての役割を充分に果たしうると考えられる。また、｢わけだ｣文における帰結過程とは、客観的な外部の情報から導かれるのが一般的であるが、話し手の内部の情報、つまり、話し手の経歴や経験などから導かれる場合もあり、話し手が自分に関する事柄を述べる際に「わけだ｣文が用いられるのであると考えられる。

「わけだ」文の意味はまだ明らかにされていないところがあり、外国人学習者の中にはその使い方が難しく、使用頻度が落ちるどころか誤用例を探すのも難しくない。その意味さえ正しく捉えられていない「わけだ」文が「からだ」文と同じような意味を表し、両形式間における混同が生じる場合もあり、本稿ではその意味の違いを明らかにすることを試みている。類似した文法形式の意味の違いを究明するのはそれほど簡単なことではない。理由を表す形式の場合も同様であり、これらの形式間に存在する意味の違いを明らかにするのは極めて難しいことである。本稿では、理由を表す文に「からだ」ではなく「わけだ」を使い、間違った使い方をする外国人学習者の誤用例から、「からだ」文と「わけだ」文が表す理由の意味の違いについて考察した。「わけだ」文が表す理由は、対象から納得し、それを理由として位置づけたもの、つまり、話し手が何か認識の過程を経て位置づけたまさにモダリティの形式であり、そのような認識․納得の過程のない直接的な理由を表す「からだ」文とは異なっている。納得の形として提示した理由の文でないと「わけだ」が用いられることはない。納得の形で提示した理由の文、つまり「わけだ」文は「からだ」文に置き換えられるが、その「からだ」文は「わけだ」文が持っているモダリティ的な意味はなく、単なる理由を表す文になってしまう。