L1 and L2 Korean Evidential Use: Using the Discourse Completion Task (DCT)
3
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The current study investigated the pragmatic uses of Korean evidential expressions denoting direct experience, hearsay, and inference by native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers of Korean. Data were collected from 14 participants using the DCT (discourse completion task) method, which allows for both quantitative and qualitative analyses of discourse data across various discourse contexts. The participants included 9 advanced-level Korean L2 learners, and 5 Korean native speakers. It was hypothesized that two types of differences would be observed: 1) differences in evidential usage between the L1 and L2 speakers, and 2) differences among the L2 speakers themselves, based on their L1 language backgrounds and exposure to authentic Korean. Results showed the following major findings. First, the native Korean speakers (L1) used a greater number of evidentials on average than the non-native (L2) speakers. Second, the L2 speakers tended to use more inferential evidential forms compared to direct experience (perceptual), quotative, and hearsay evidentials, whereas the L1 speakers used a wider variety of forms, including inferential, perceptual, quotative, and hearsay evidentials. Third, the L1 speakers used more contracted forms of hearsay and quotative evidentials, while L2 speakers used their uncontracted forms more frequently. Finally, differences were observed among the L2 participants‟ results that indicated the possible influences of each participant‟s native language (L1) and amount of exposure to Korean. The implications of these results and possible future directions for subsequent research are discussed.
Abstract
The current study investigated the pragmatic uses of Korean evidential expressions denoting direct experience, hearsay, and inference by native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers of Korean. Data were collected from 14 participants using the DCT (discourse completion task) method, which allows for both quantitative and qualitative analyses of discourse data across various discourse contexts. The participants included 9 advanced-level Korean L2 learners, and 5 Korean native speakers. It was hypothesized that two types of differences would be observed: 1) differences in evidential usage between the L1 and L2 speakers, and 2) differences among the L2 speakers themselves, based on their L1 language backgrounds and exposure to authentic Korean. Results showed the following major findings. First, the native Korean speakers (L1) used a greater number of evidentials on average than the non-native (L2) speakers. Second, the L2 speakers tended to use more inferential evidential forms compared to direct experience (perceptual), quotative, and hearsay evidentials, whereas the L1 speakers used a wider variety of forms, including inferential, perceptual, quotative, and hearsay evidentials. Third, the L1 speakers used more contracted forms of hearsay and quotative evidentials, while L2 speakers used their uncontracted forms more frequently. Finally, differences were observed among the L2 participants‟ results that indicated the possible influences of each participant‟s native language (L1) and amount of exposure to Korean. The implications of these results and possible future directions for subsequent research are discussed.
참고문헌 (16)
- Aikhenvald, A. Y., "Evidentiality" (2004), Oxford University Press
- Aoki, H., "Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology", pp.223~238 (1986)
- Billmyer, K., "Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects ofenhancing discourse completion tests", Applied Linguistics, 21(4), pp.517~552 (2000)
- Byon, A., "Language socialization and Korean as a heritage language: A study of Hawaiian classrooms", Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16(3), pp.269~283 (2003)
- Byon, A., "Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: pedagogical settings", Journal of Pragmatics, 36, pp.1673~1704 (2004)
- Byon, A., "The role of indirectness and honorifics in achieving linguistic politeness in Korean requests", Journal of Politeness Research, 2, pp.247~276 (2006)
- Han, S., "Research into communication problems between native and non-native speakers of Korean: Focusing on the pragmatic failures of English speaking learners", pp.2005
- Kang, A., "Negotiating conflict within the constraints of social hierarchy in Korean American discourse", Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(3), pp.299~320 (2003)
- Kasper, G., "Pragmatic Development in a Second Language" (2002), Blackwell Publishing Ltd
- M. S. Kim, "Evidentiality in achieving entitlement, objectivity, and detachment in Korean conversation", Discourse Studies, 7(1), pp.87~108 (2005), SAGE Publications[DOI]
- Narrog, H., "Modality in Japanese: The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories" (2009), John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Ohta, A. S., "Evidentiality and Politeness in Japanese", Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), pp.211~238 (1991)[DOI]
- Larry Selinker, "INTERLANGUAGE", IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1-4) (1972), Walter de Gruyter GmbH[DOI]
- Sohn, H., "The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality" (2018), Oxford University Press
- Turnbull, W., "An appraisal of pragmatic elicitation techniques for the social psychological study of talk: The case of request refusals", Pragmatics, 11, pp.31~61 (2001)
- Yoon, K., "A case study of fluent Korean-English bilingual speakers: Group membership and code choices", Journal of Pragmatics, 3, pp.395~407 (1996)