영어학습자의 성격 유형에 따른 무례함에 대한 응대 화행 연구 = Korean EFL students's pragmaticstrategy use in responding to rudeness: depending on their personality types

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Korean EFL Students’ Pragmatic Strategy Use in Responding to Rudeness
- Depending on their Personality Types -



Park, Miyoung

Department of English Language & Literature,
Graduate School, Pusan National University


Abstract

It is commonly known that there is some imbalance between grammatical competence and pragmatic competence for EFL students. Korean students as EFL learners may be proficient in grammar and vocabulary, but they are still struggling in communicating effectively with native speakers in English. Beebe(1995) also mentioned that responding to rudeness is a delicate skill that reflects communicative competence, and most nonnative speakers are neither emotionally nor linguistically armed to deal with rudeness.
Therefore this study aims to investigate the Korean EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Strategy Use in Responding to Rudeness. It is sincerely hoped that the findings of this study are pedagogically informative in some ways.
Mainly this study compared the Korean EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Strategy Use in Responding to Rudeness depending on their personality types. Also this study examines how English proficiency level correlates with the Pragmatic Strategy Use in Responding to Rudeness comparing with the personality type.
The result showed that the Extroverted Korean Students used ‘Insult’ the most while the Introverted Korean Students used ‘Apologize’ the most. But regarding the other Personalty Factors such as Sensing-iNtuitive, Thinking-Feeling, Judging-Perceiving, there were no significant differences in the frequency of Pragmatic Strategy Use in Responding to Rudeness.
The current study also compared the lower and higher proficiency Korean EFL students for their pragmatic strategy use in responding to rudeness. The result showed that both of the groups used ‘Insult’ the most and ‘Apologize’ the next. Comparing with the past studies of which the results showed that lower proficiency EFL students used ‘Apologize’ the most while the higher proficiency EFL students used ‘Insult’ the most, there were no significant differences in the frequency of pragmatic strategy use in responding to rudeness by the English Proficiency level in current study results. So this result did’t support the past studies. There might be some limitations that there were not enough students for this investigation and also we need to do some further research to reach the appropriate correlation between the various factors.
However this study provides a preliminary description of Korean EFL students’ pragmatic strategy use in responding to rudeness. Hopefully this will help the teachers of Korean EFL students to deal with the pragmatic strategies and provide the pedagogical implications in some ways.
Once more it is sincerely hoped that the present study will contribute to go beyond the conventional speech act in order to investigate a wider variety of social encounters. As beebe has repeatedly argued for the management of rudeness as an important component of pragmatic competence, it’s time for us to take a next step to seriously consider the development of that component of pragmatic competence.
To understand and to be understood by language we should not have any burden in conveying our sincere feelings in any circumstances. For that, we need to be ready for going beyond from the conventional functions of language such as the focused Politeness Theory in Speech Act. If someone crosses the line, we need to correct them to keep the line. For keeping our right in all ways even in learning foreign language, we definitely need to keep our dignity. In other words, it is highly expected from my side to strengthen our pragmatic competence in strategic way toward responding to rudeness is one kind of detour to keep the politeness for both directions in an appropriate manners.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 1
• 제2장 이론적 배경 4
• 2.1. 공손성 4
• 2.1.1. 공손성의 정의 4
• 2.1.2. 공손 전략 5
• 2.2. 무례함 7
• 2.2.1. 무례함의 정의 8
• 2.2.2. 무례함에 대한 응대화행 9
• 2.3. MBTI(Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) 성격유형 12
• 2.3.1. MBTI 성격유형의 정의 13
• 2.3.2. MBTI 성격유형별 특징 14
• 2.4. 무례함에 대한 응대화행전략 관련 선행연구 15
• 2.4.1. 국내 선행연구 15
• 2.4.2. 국외 선행연구 16
• 제3장 연구 방법 19
• 3.1. 연구 대상 19
• 3.2. 연구 도구 19
• 3.2.1. MBTI 성격검사테스트 20
• 3.2.2. 담화 완성테스트(Discourse Completion Test) 21
• 3.2.3. Beebe and Waring(2005) 틀에 의한 DCT 결과 분석 22
• 3.3. 연구 절차 23
• 제4장 연구 결과 및 논의 24
• 4.1. 학습자의 성격유형별 무례함에 대한 응대화행전략 24
• 4.1.1. 성격유형별 화행전략 분석 25
• 4.1.2. 성격지표별 화행전략 비교분석 40
• 4.2. 학습자의 영어 능숙도에 따른 무례함에 대한 응대화행전략 54
• 4.2.1. 영어 능숙도별 화행전략 분석 54
• 4.3. 학습자 요인별 응대화행전략상에 드러난 어휘적 특징 59
• 4.3.1. 학습자들의 응대화행전략상에 드러난 어휘적 특징 60
• 4.3.2. 학습자들의 성격유형에 따른 어휘적 특징 61
• 4.3.3. 학습자들의 영어 능숙도에 따른 어휘적 특징 63
• 제5장 결 론 66
• 참 고 문 헌 70
• 부 록 75
• 영 문 초 록 81