The purpose of this study is to investigate aspects of discourse markers use by Malaysian advanced learners of Korean. This is because advanced learners of Korean and learners of Korean for academic purpose are necessarily required to have discussion ...
The purpose of this study is to investigate aspects of discourse markers use by Malaysian advanced learners of Korean. This is because advanced learners of Korean and learners of Korean for academic purpose are necessarily required to have discussion ability expressing their opinions on the social issue or certain subject clearly and persuading an opponent. And, especially it's because education on discourse markers is essential for the strategic operation of discussion.
This study is constructed like as follows:
In Chapter Ⅰ, it refers to the aim and necessity of the study, examines precedent studies on the discourse markers and discussion education, and presents research topics based on those above. In Chapter Ⅱ, it arranges the theory on discussion conversation and discourse markers as the theoretical backgrounds of this study, and prepares the basic for interpreting aspects of discourse markers use shown in the data of Malaysian learners of Korean. Especially, regarding Hierarchy setting of discussion conversation is important in order to analyze functions of discourse markers, it presents Stenstroem(1994) concept of Hierarchy of Discourse and the precedent theories on discussion education, so prepares the frame for analyzing discourse markers. In Chapter Ⅲ, it presents detail proceeding of this test with design and procedure of it and the method to analyze collected data on discussion. In Chapter Ⅳ, it analyze aspects of discourse markers use of learners through functional classifying discourse markers collected in this test into Hierarchy of discussion conversation and comparing it with data of native Korean speakers. In Chapter Ⅴ, it presents conclusions based on the study results and refers to significance and limit of this study.
The results of this study are as follows:
First, learners of Korean have far less illocutionary amounts compared with natives when proceeding discussion conversation with frequent turn-taking, and it‘s interpreted learners of Korean have difficulty in long-time discussion conversation in self-illocutionary turn. In addition, the rate of Korean-learners' discourse markers use was higher than that of native speakers, and it's remarkable that a half of discourse markers use frequency was discourse markers for maintaining turn.
Second, learners of Korean use discourse markers most frequently in the turn hierarchy, and show lower frequency in the topic hierarchy and act hierarchy compared with native speakers. Especially, it shows that they're poor at using discourse markers in the topic hierarchy which cohesion of discourse realizes and the act hierarchy which speakers' intention or psychological attitude appears strategically.
Third, learners of Korean have many limits not only in the general use of discourse markers but in the kind and use of individual discourse markers which are divided into hierarchy. First of all, in the topic hierarchy, there's few discourse markers including ‘kreonikka(그러니까)’, ‘ije(이제)’ and ‘amuteun(아무튼)’ frequently shown in the data of the natives, and so is in the turn hierarchy(excepting turn-maintaining function) or act hierarchy. Especially, in the act hierarchy, certain discourse markers are used excessively over and over again including ‘I think~’ and ‘In my opinion~’ of the assertive function, ‘Because’ of the base-presenting function and ‘There's some reason but~’ of contradicting function.
Fourth, learners of Korean only use dicourse markers of direct speech act including ‘I think it must~’, ‘I object about~’ and ‘How do you think, Mr.~’. In contrast, native speakers actively use discourse markers of indirect speech act to respect others' honor including ‘Maybe I think~’, ‘I'd like to question about~’ and ‘I'd like to ask your opinion about~’.
Fifth, learners of Korean create awkward dicourse markers including ‘I have the same(different) idea’ not shown in the native speakers, and commit many errors in inflecting and selecting of the tense and particle when using discourse markers.
Sixth, in the data of Korean-learners, there's few discourse markers of spoken language-type including ‘keunkka(근까)’, ‘keunikka(그니까)’, ‘inje(인제)’ and ‘amteun(암튼)’.
These are summarized results of this study, and the significance of this study can be found out from 3 aspects like followings.
First of all, this study found out how Malaysian learners of Korean acquire discourse markers through researching the aspects of their use of discourse markers. Also, through comparison with native Korean speakers, it offered the basic data for discourse markers education required in future Korean teaching by cataloging discourse markers for Korean-learners and presenting the various properties and errors shown from their use of discourse markers. Finally, focused on the properties of discourse·interaction·strategy which discussion conversation has, this study set hierarchy of discussion conversation newly and investigated functions of discourse markers systematically.