영어권과 중국어권 학습자의 한국어 관계관형절 습득 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study investigated the second language acquisition of relative clauses in Korean by the learners of speaking English and Chinese as a mother tongue. English, Chinese and Korean are typologically different from one another: 1) English relative clauses, unlike those of Korean, are head-initial whereas Chinese, like those of Korean, are head-final for a relative clause. 2) Unlike English and Chinese, there is no independent relative pronouns in Korean. The predicative of relative clauses marked with an adnominal morpheme '-un, -ul, -nun' indicates that it is not only modifying a noun but it is also representing the tense of the relative clause in Korean. As for the features encoded in the Complementizer, a functional category, they are similar between English and Korean having both [predicative] and [wh], whereas Chinese has only a [predicative] feature in it. In addition, unlike the difference in head-direction, the tense in English is represented by either a syntactic morpheme or adverb as Korean is. In contrast to Korean and English, the tense in Chinese is represented by lexical items such as adverbs but not by a syntactic morpheme. The prediction could be made: The similarity could facilitate English learners' acquisition of Korean relative clauses but hinder it for Chinese learners.
The results of the study indicated that the acquisition of L2 Korean relative clauses by the English and Chinese participants follows different patterns of development.
First of all, two groups of participants made a clear distinction between grammatical relative clauses and ungrammatical relative clauses although the scores of the Chinese participants appeared slightly lower than those of the English participants.
Secondly, although English is different from Korean in head direction of relative clauses, the English participants successfully located ungrammatical head direction of Korean and corrected them as accurate as the Chinese did. The data indicates that difference in head direction did not have no permanent effect on the participants' acceptance of grammatical relative clauses.
Thirdly, it is noticed that the English participants outperformed the Chinese participants in making accurate corrections to the tense of Korean relative clauses. It seems that the Chinese participants had problems acquiring the tense features of Korean relative clause even though they became more proficient while the English participants' performance on accurate tense use was steadily improved with level.
Fourthly, the data indicates that the acquisition of direct object relative clauses in Korean seemed to be relatively easier for both the English and Chinese participants than subject relative clauses.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 1. 서론 1
• 1.1. 연구 목적과 범위 1
• 1.2. 선행 연구 검토와 문제 제기 4
• 1.3. 연구 방법 10
• 2. 논의의 전제 12
• 2.1. 이론적 배경 12
• 2.2. 관계관형절의 유형론적 차이 17
• 2.3. 연구 대상과 방법 28
• 3. 연구 결과 및 분석 37
• 3.1. 문법적 관계관형절(RC-는-N)에 대한 문법성 판단 37
• 3.2. 비문법적 관계관형절(RC-N)에 대한 문법성 판단 및 수정 39
• 3.3. 비문법적 관계관형절(N-RC-는)에 대한 문법성 판단 및 수정 43
• 3.4. 비문법적 관계관형절에 대한 수정 정확률 비교 45
• 3.5. 문법성 판단 용인율에 대한 집단 간 비교 50
• 3.6. 주어 관계관형절과 직접목적어 관계관형절 습득 양상 51
• 4. 결론 56
• 참고문헌 59
• ABSTRACT 63