중국인 학습자의 한국어 형태소 교체 오류 양상 연구: 한국어 원인･이유 유사 문법을 중심으로

Abstract

This study investigates the patterns of morpheme substitution errors made by Chineselearners of Korean. A survey was conducted with 100 participants, consisting of 20 learners each from TOPIK Levels 2 to 6. The questionnaire examined orthographic realizations resulting from the combination of the Korean causal and reason-marking constructions ‘-는데(neunde)’, ‘-니까(nikka)’, ‘-어서(eoseo)’, and ‘-라서(raseo)’ with 17 words and phrases from various lexical categories. A total of 277 error types were identified and classified into eight upper-level categories and ten subcategories, extending beyond the traditional classifications of addition, substitution, and misformation. The eight categories are ‘stem–ending combination errors’, ‘morpheme addition/substitution errors’, ‘morpheme omission errors’, ‘contraction errors’, ‘final output errors’, ‘tense ending application errors’, ‘irregular-conjugation application errors’, and ‘misjudgment of combinability’. The ten subcategories are ‘misselection of allomorphic endings’ and ‘confusion in the locus of combination’ under stem–ending combination errors; ‘redundant addition’ and ‘inappropriate morpheme addition/substitution’ under morpheme addition/substitution errors; ‘failure to apply contraction’ and ‘over-application of contraction’ under contraction errors; ‘misjudgment in applying irregular conjugation’ and ‘inappropriate application of irregular conjugation’ under irregular-conjugation application errors; and ‘misjudgment of direct combinability’ and ‘avoidant substitution for combination’ under misjudgment of combinability. By analyzing these errors, the study highlights the importance of morphology-focused instruction and explores pedagogical approaches that support accurate morphological substitution. The findings suggest that instruction should incorporate actual learner errors and provide step-by-step feedback, reinforcing systematic morphological education across proficiency levels rather than relying solely on explicit grammatical explanation.