• Cartoon and Animation Studies
• /
• s.44
• /
• pp.235-261
• /
• 2016

Media consumers in the context of the Internet and digital media are using the same content to a variety of platforms. As such, the content of various genres is converted to the form of a new content through the process of fusion, combination, transformation, differentiation, reproduction, etc on the basis of digital media. That is referred to as trans-media. In order to create the successful content in trans-media era, it requires the work of Edi-curation. Edi-curation work is the act of editing and adding meaning to the curation work of curators. In that sense, this paper analyzed the definition and meaning for Edi-curation of publishing and comic(webtoon) content in trans-media era. Edi-curation process induces the changing role of consumers and producers of content in the digital media experience. In process of Edi-curation, consumers(producers) will soon lead to a media producer(consumer), namely proconsumer / produser. Diversification of digital platforms and devices, digital 1 person (or SNS) appeared in the media, etc. are also required to Edi-curation of content and comic(webtoon) published in a variety of ways. Depending on the intention of media producers (or consumers), content through the process of replication, montage, disassembly, dismantling, hypertext, compression, and reconstruction births to new content. The work of Edi-curation has the significance that it affects the way the media producers work in creative process, as well as the reading content of the media consumers. In the publishing content, Edi-curation work is the logicality destruction of a chapter or a paragraph, a sentence of colloquialisms, card news, the deformation of the utilization of video and media content. Meanwhile in the comic(webtoon) content, we mention the destruction of cut(frame), the various modifications of speech bubbles, onomatopoeia, and mimetic word.

• Lingua Humanitatis
• /
• v.6
• /
• pp.321-357
• /
• 2004

In this article the structure of modern Russian humor is analyzed on the basis of some theories: bi-sociation theory (Koestler 1964), semantic script theory of verbal humor, using the concept of semantic presupposition, pragmatic felicity condition (Searle 1969; Levinson 1983) and grammatical rules (Chomsky 1965). Up to now the listed former theories were not examined and less analyzed by the semantic structure in the study of the structure of Russian humor(HcaeBa 1969; 3 $a_{OPHOB}$ 1991; 1992). Kreps (1981), who analyzed the works of Zoschenko, presented 21 types of humor, using the term 'humoreme'(Kpenc 1981, 36-37). These types are the list of the available means of humor that work not in the base of semantic criteria, but in the base of means of literary rhetoric. Kreps presented types of humor means, such as contradiction, antonymic substitution, macaronic speech and correlation of humoremes in the various types of humor. Apart from Kreps, Manakov (MaHaKOB 1986, 61-79) also studied these problems. He also set the system of the basic types of humor. Manakov introduced the linguistic means of humor of some Russian writers: Gogol, Tchechov. The means that Manakov showed with detailed examples, are trope, epithet, comic comparison, comic metaphor, comic periphrasis, euphemism, pun, zeugma, comic toponym, comic onomatopoeia, mania of foreign vocabulary, folk etymology, dialect etc. But these studies don't explain why these means make the works humorous. An, B.p tried to answer this question (안병팔 1997 a; b). An B.p. explains contexts of humor through the Release theory, the Superiority theory and the Incongruity theory. An, B.p. explained the process of deviation from the grammatical norms through morpho-syntactic and lexical means. But in these studies the humor was not analyzed by the semantic criteria. In order to linguistically evaluate various means of humor formation, it is necessary to elicit its deep structure, which makes it possible to research the formation and interpretation of humor. For this purpose this article, being based on the Incongruity theory, defined the structure of humor as negation of presupposition. Of course the former traditional studies also well shared the concept of 'contradiction' and 'contrast' of humor structure, but they didn't explain the structure by semantic differential features. This study, analyzing the works of' Zadornov, M., tried to note that through the negation of semantic presupposition the structure of contradiction is formed with semantic differential features on the semantic, syntactic or lexical dimensions.